


















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































* • 






. • ** A ^ • * * aO 

a* yJjrk,- *+ c° .“^‘** ° 

•bf :iafl^. : 

° ^ 

* • • o 9 ^o * *»' 

v o 0 > !• • * / 

• *P^ A* \ * 

&r> C/ ♦ 4 

t ^ $ • 


o • » 


A : 

* <t? * 

4 ,r > 1 



^d* 


„ ’•'VVi* A 

0 V o 0 JL*-* ^o 

*. ° a* .* 

■. *b V* 




o A o* - 

_ 4% v _ V kV * « 

^ <L^ O 

<s> * • *« 9 cv 

.0‘ , •V', *> v' .’••■. *e» 

•. w . -iffiX’- ' 

* '”a O " ' AA- 1 ♦ ^ * <Ji 



o. *■'...• A 

0*__«»V« ^b j.V 

° ^ ♦* 
'*b^ 





" • 
* <> > • 


• • • jfi ^ •’■'T7** A 

,CT • A % .‘'*. *<> 

C • o A ,* 

’bv* ' 



^ O’ 


° A 4 ’ ^ „ »' V. . 

♦ <i ^ o «■ ' r -t<Af** % * "S * 

^ -•••* y o *.,,.• O- 1 V * 

'1 * «, v .:4.*i*. ^ .♦« .*i^r. > 

^ - <J' N * 5 >^/'-P t<* & * y \«WfcyT» • 

. _,„: • 

A j'. : 

* '0/ ■ 

4 _ ^ <** owwr i . v # 

... »7^r. a <• ..', 7 . 0 

;. % c 0* .. 

* * 3 C* « ' ^ 

»- *(y 

o ^5 < *^«v •■ ^ 

<£• ♦ A^yr 1 . -{V * 

„. * • * 0 ° O. 4 

■*. « Vj^f v ** A* ..Wa*, ^ 

* * <h?* ** 

.r . • ^. ^ f 0^ *0 A' . 

oK . /t\ + \ju r\> o 


» • o 




> 0 ^. . 




- A .*/ 


r oK 


V ^0 




A •> 

fl» # 






' RxMsrW/A . 

^ v, 

* .0* 'o •T’J*?** a' "> ''f/? ‘ 

^ V .J % .0* 


•tt-o 4 


4 o 

%Ci 

? V^V 

*••-- <^v v) 

* 5} • 7*. A 1^ v 



A. 1 

«> °o jl> 

\ ^ .V 

. o V 

^ v^M^* >° -v ' 

• «.r O ^cZlr'&S _0 ^ 

<r ••.*• % 

/ >;•»- o. .<r .vv-, v 

* .Wa- v <** 

° **$ * 

* <t> ^ * ^1^2* A V «$* 

4 ^- V % 7 

A 0 o */7y7* a <■ '*..»• v 

>P r (T **0 • k * • • <*A ,0* 

'*•- ^ ++ o* 





'o K 


^ °- $ ’ 7 V 

> o„ \W-4 .0 % *' 

O, * t i ^ • jv0 ^ 



'•**- •" _ 'A 



c & * 

• ^ s s 

• aV^> : 

• * v > • 



p 

Ij^Tl /V >* 

A> . / . %c> 

K 0 K » j£3(§^^ * ^ O' 


0 -o5 ^ 

/ o 

• ■ 0 9 y % 

* > V * • • "* < 

* A «. »-<?■-»• 

^ A V ^ 

Vv 







II AATON 


JOVS 


J 


THE APOLOGY OF SOCRATES THE CRITO 

AND PART OF THE PHEDO 


WITH NOTES FROM STALLSAUM 

I 

AND 

SCHLEIERMACHER’S INTRODUCTIONS 

» 



> 


LONDON 

TAYLOR AND WALTON UPPER GOWER STREET 

BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS TO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE 


MDCCCXL 






* 


Gift 

JOfe'l ;V‘ einrg 

i.^04, 


< 

« « 


4 


LONDON : 

PRINTED BY STEWART AND MURRAY, 
OLD BAILEY. 







PREFACE. 


The text of the following edition of the Apology 
of Socrates, the Crito, and part of the Phaedo, is 
a reprint from that of Stallbaum’s. The whole 
of his notes, which have been translated for this 
edition by Mr. Gillespie, A.M. of Trinity College, 
Dublin, are given with a few unimportant ex¬ 
ceptions. The notes on the various readings are 
placed at the foot of the page, and those of an 
explanatory nature at the end of the volume. 
The Latin abbreviations used to denote the MSS. 
are those of Bekker’s edition. 

It has been justly considered by many scholars 
that the Apology of Socrates and the Crito might 
be read with great advantage in the higher classes 
of our schools, and it has been partly with the 
view of supplying a suitable edition for such a 
purpose that I have been induced to edit the 
following pages. The Apology and the Crito are 
written in an easy style, and are almost entirely 



VI 


PREFACE. 


free from those philosophical discussions, which 
render the greater part of Plato’s writings un¬ 
suitable for the use of schools. They also form 
the best introduction to the study- of Plato, from 
the information they convey respecting the life 
and character of Socrates, of which it is necessary 
to have some knowledge in order to understand 
many parts of Plato’s writings. 

The extracts from the Phsedo, which contain 
an account of the death of Socrates, are inserted 
at the suggestion of Professor Malden, in order 
to give a complete account of the last days of 
Socrates. 

I have to express my obligations to the Rev. 
Connop Thirl wall for his kindness in allowing me 
to make use of his translation of Schleiermacher’s 
Introduction to the Apology, which was originally 
published in the Philological Museum. 

William Smith. 


London , April 2nd, 1840. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Introduction to the Apology of Socrates . . xi 

The Apology of Socrates . 1 

Introduction to the Crito.59 

The Crito.67 

Notes on the Apology of Socrates . . .95 

Notes on the Crito.149 

Part of the Ph^edo.185 

Notes on the Ph^edo ... . 195 








HAATflNOS 


SOKPATOYS AIIOAOriA. 






SCHLEIERMACHER’S INTRODUCTION 


TO THE 

APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


I have already observed, in the general Introduc¬ 
tion of this translation of Plato, that the reader is 
not to conclude, because certain works are placed 
in an appendix, that by this I mean to deny or to 
call in question with regard to all of them, that 
they are writings of Plato. My only reason for 
assigning such a place to the following work 
which has been at all times loved and admired for 
the spirit that breathes through it, and the image 
it presents of calm moral dignity and beauty, was 
in the first instance that it contents itself with its 
particular object, and makes no pretentions to the 
title of a scientific work. It is true that the Eu- 
thyphron likewise has unquestionably an apolo¬ 
getic reference to the charge brought against So¬ 
crates ; but on the other hand its connection with 
the notions started in the Protagoras, clearly en¬ 
titled it to be subjoined to that dialogue. But the 



xii INTRODUCTION TO THE 

Apology is so purely an occasional piece, that it 
can find no place in the series of its author’s phi¬ 
losophical productions. Yet there is certainly one 
sense, in which, let not the reader be startled, one 
might perhaps say that it is not a work of Plato’s. 
I mean that it can scarcely be a work of his 
thoughts, a thing which he invented and fabri¬ 
cated. For if we attribute to Plato the intention 
of defending Socrates, we must first of all distin¬ 
guish the times at which he might have done it, 
either during his process, or subsequently, no 
matter how soon or how late, to his execution. 
Now in the latter case Plato could only have pro¬ 
posed to vindicate the principles and sentiments 
of his friend and master. But this vindication he, 
who was so fond of combining several ends in one 
work, might easily have coupled with his scientific 
views: and accordingly we not only find detached 
intimations of this kind scattered over his later 
writings, but we shall soon be introduced to an 
important work, one which cannot be denied to be 
closely enough interwoven with his scientific spe¬ 
culations, in which a collateral object, but one 
made distinctly prominent, is to place the conduct 
and virtue of Socrates as an Athenian citizen in a 
clear light. Now this is intelligible enough: but 
Plato could scarcely have found any inducement 
at a later period to compose a work which merely 
confronts Socrates with his actual accusers. It 
must have been then during the process that he 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


xiii 

wrote this speech. But for what purpose ? It is 
manifest that he could have rendered his master 
no worse service, than if, before he had defended 
himself in court, he had published a defence under 
his name, just as if to help the prosecutors to the 
arguments which it would be their business to 
parry or to elude, and to place the defendant in 
the difficult situation of being reduced either to 
repeat much that had been said before, or to say 
something less forcible. Hence the more excel¬ 
lent and the better suited to the character of So¬ 
crates the defence might be, the more harm it 
would have done to him. But this is a suppo¬ 
sition which will scarcely be maintained. 

After the decision of the cause there were two 
purposes which Plato might have had, either that 
of making the course of the proceedings more 
generally known at the time, and of framing a 
memorial of them for posterity, or that of setting 
the different parties and their mode of proceeding- 
in a proper light. Now if we inquire about the 
only rational means to the latter of these ends: 
all will agree that the speech should have been 
put into the mouth, not of Socrates, but of some 
other person defending him. For the advocate 
might have brought forward many things, which 
the character of Socrates rendered improper for 
him to urge, and might have shown by the work 
that, if the defendant’s cause had only been 
pleaded by a person who had no need to disdain 
a 3 


INTRODUCTION TO THE 


xiv 

resources which many men of honour did not 
think beneath them, it would have had a very 
different issue. Now if there were any foundation 
for an anecdote, not indeed a very probable one, 
which Diogenes Laertius has preserved from an 
insignificant writer, Plato’s most natural course 
would have been, to publish the speech which he 
would himself have made on the same occasion if 
he had not been hindered.* He would then have 
had an opportunity of exemplifying those great 
precepts- and expedients of rhetoric, the force of 
which he had himself first disclosed; and un¬ 
doubtedly he might have applied them with great 
truth and art to the charges concerning the new 
deities and the corruption of youth. And so it 
would have been far better for him to have used 
any other person’s name for the purpose of retort¬ 
ing on the accusers of Socrates, and to have 
spoken of his merits in a different tone. Whereas 
in a speech put into the mouth of Socrates him¬ 
self, yet different from that which he really de¬ 
livered, he can have had no other object than to 
show what Socrates voluntarily neglected or in¬ 
voluntarily let slip, and how his defence should 
have been framed so as to produce a better effect. 

* “ See Diog. Laert. II. 41. where it is related that Plato was 
prepared to defend Socrates, but in the first sentence of his 
speech was interrupted by the petulance of the jurors, and com¬ 
pelled to descend from the bema. But this anecdote is too little 
attested and too improbable in itself to build upon.” 

Schleiermachbr. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


xv 


Now not to mention that this would have been 
scarcely possible without departing from the cha¬ 
racter of Socrates, it is evident that the defence 
we now have was not framed with this view. For 
how could such a speech have been followed by 
the address after the verdict, which implies an 
issue not more favourable than the real one ? 
The only supposition then that remains is, that 
this work was designed simply to exhibit and 
record in substance the real proceedings of the 
case, for those Athenians who were not able to be 
hearers, and for the other Greeks, and posterity. 
Now are we to believe that, in such a case and 
under such circumstances, Plato was unable to 
resist the temptation of fathering upon Socrates a 
work of his own art, which in all but the outline 
was perhaps entirely foreign to him, like a boy 
who has a theme set him to declaim on. This we 
cannot believe, but must presume that in this 
case, where nothing of his own was wanted, and 
he had entirely devoted himself to his friend, es¬ 
pecially so short a time before or after the death 
of Socrates, as this work was undoubtedly com¬ 
posed, he considered his departing friend too sa¬ 
cred to be disguised even with the most beautiful 
of ornaments, and his whole form as so faultless 
and majestic, that it was not right to exhibit it in 
any dress, but, like the statue of a god, naked, 
and wrapt only in its own beauty. And so in 
fact we find he has done. For a critic who should 


XVI 


INTRODUCTION TO THE 


undertake the task of mending this speech would 
find a great deal in it to alter. . Thus the charge 
of misleading the young is not. repelled with argu¬ 
ments by any means so cogent as it might have 
been, nor is sufficient stress by a great deal laid 
on the fact, that Socrates had done every thing in 
the service of Apollo, for defending him against 
the charge of disbelief of the antient gods: and 
any one with his eyes only half open may discover 
other weak points of the like kind, which are not 
so grounded in the character of Socrates that Plato 
should have been compelled to copy them. 

Nothing therefore is more probable, than that 
in this speech we possess as faithful a transcript of 
Socrates’ real defence, as Plato’s practised memory 
enabled him to make, allowing for the necessary 
difference between a written speech and one care¬ 
lessly spoken. But perhaps some one may say: 
If Plato, supposing him to be the author of this 
work, did nothing more than record what he had 
heard: what reason is there for insisting on this 
fact, or how can it be known, that it was he, and 
not some other among the friends of Socrates who 
were present at the trial ? Such an objector, if 
he is familiar with the style of Plato, need only be 
referred to the whole aspect of the Apology, 
which distinctly shows that it can have proceeded 
from no pen but Plato’s. For in it Socrates 
speaks exactly as Plato makes him speak, a man¬ 
ner in which, so far as we can judge from all we 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


XVII 


have left, he was not made to speak by any of his 
other scholars. And this resemblance is so indis¬ 
putable, that it may serve as a foundation for a 
remark of some importance. For it suggests the 
question: Whether certain peculiarities of the 
Platonic dialogue, particularly the imaginary ques¬ 
tions and answers inserted in a sentence, and the 
accumulation of several sentences comprehended 
under one, and often expanded much too amply 
for this subordinate place, together with the inter¬ 
ruption almost inevitably arising from this cause 
in the original structure of the period: whether 
these peculiarities, seeing that we find them so 
predominant here, ought not properly to be re¬ 
ferred to Socrates? They occur in Plato most 
frequently where he is imitating Socrates closest; 
but nowhere so frequently, and so little clear of 
their accompanying negligences, as here and in 
the following dialogue (the Crito), which is pro¬ 
bably of like origin. All this together renders 
it a very natural conjecture, that these forms of 
speech were originally copied from Socrates, and 
are therefore to be numbered among the speci¬ 
mens of the mimic art of Plato, who endeavoured 
in a certain degree to copy the style of the per¬ 
sons whom he introduces, if it had peculiarities 
which justified him in so doing. And any one 
who tries this observation by applying it to Plato’s 
different works, especially in the order in which I 
have arranged them, will find it very strongly 


INTRODUCTION TO THE 


xviii 

confirmed by the trial. The cause why such an 
imitation was not attempted by other disciples of 
Socrates, was probably this : that on the one hand 
it really required no little art to bend these pecu¬ 
liarities of a careless colloquial style under the 
laws of written discourse, and to amalgamate them 
with the regular beauty of expression, and on the 
other hand, it called for more courage to meet the 
censure of minute critics than Xenophon probably 
possessed. But this is not the place for entering 
further into this question. 

One circumstance however must still be no¬ 
ticed, which might be alleged against the genuine¬ 
ness of this work, and with more plausibility in¬ 
deed than any other: that it wants the dress of 
the dialogue, in which Plato presents all his other 
works, and which he has given even to the Me- 
nexenus, though in other respects that like this 
consists of nothing more than a speech. Why 
therefore it may be asked, should the Apology, 
which so easily admitted of this ornament, be the 
only work of Plato that is destitute of it ? Con¬ 
vincing as this sounds, the weight of all other 
arguments is too strong not to counter-balance 
this scruple, and we reply to the objection as fol¬ 
lows. In the first place, it is possible that the 
dialogic form had not then become so indispen¬ 
sable with Plato as it afterwards was : which may 
serve as an answer for those who are inclined to 
set a great value on the dress of the Menexenus; 





APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


xix 


or Plato himself distinguished this work from his 
other writings too much to think of subjecting it 
to the same law. Besides, it would in general be 
very unworthy of Plato, to consider the dialogue, 
even in those works where it is not very inti¬ 
mately blended with the main mass of the com¬ 
position, as nothing more than an ornament arbi¬ 
trarily appended to them: it always has its 
meaning, and contributes to the conformation and 
effect of the whole. Now if this would not have 
been the case in the present instance, why should 
Plato have brought it violently in ? Especially as 
in all likelihood he wished to hasten the publica¬ 
tion of this speech as much as possible, and might 
not think it advisable at that time to hazard a 
public declaration of his sentiments on the issue 
of the cause, which, if he had clothed the speech 
in the form of a dialogue, it would have been 
difficult to avoid, without rendering the form ut¬ 
terly empty and unmeaning. 











n AATiiNOS 


2 QKPAT 0 Y 2 AnOAOTIA. 


o 


Cap. I. f, 0 tl iuev vpets, a> avbpes * A0r)vaioi* 

7T67 TOVddTZ VITO T&V CfJL&V KaT7]y6pCOV, OVK oTba" SyCO 
0’ OVV KCLL CLVTOS VIT CLVT&V SkiyOV epLCLVTOV €776- 

kadoprjv b ovraj 7 nOavcos ekeyov. Kai tol akrjOes ye, 
ojs €770? eh:eiv, c ovbev elpr\K.a(n. paktara be avrcov ev 
edavpacra d t&v 7 toW&v gov e^everavTO, tovto, £v (o 
ekeyov, o>? Xpijv vpas evkafieLcrdcu, prj vir epov 
e^aTTarrjOrjre/ cos beivov ovros keyetv. to yap prj 
alcryyvOrivai, on avrUa vtt epov e£ekeyyQr\<rovTai 
epyco, h re chav pr]b' 6 ttgostlovv { cfoaCvoopat beivos keyetv, 


Cap. I. p. 17.. syw S’ ovv ical avrog.] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. 
Vind. 1. 4. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. Commonly tyioy ovv. So 
S’ ovv after p'ev, C. XXIII. Theaet.p. 197. B. Compare Hermann, 
ad Lucian. De hist, conscr. p. 255. 

SX’iyov epavrov kneXaQoprjv.] Selv, commonly put after oXiyov, 
is omitted in Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6. Florr. b. e. g. h. i. 
Coisl. Ven. A. Parr. D E H S T. Ang. prim. m. Vind. 2.: nor 
does Plato any where, to my knowledge, use it in connection with 
the Indicative preterite; see Rep. VIII. p. 563. B. Menexen, p. 
236. B. Yet AGschines adv. Ctesiphonl. p. 428. SXiyov Sslv 
ps9ei<TTf]KSl. 

prj ai<r^vv9rjvai, on avTitza .] o tl edit. Bass, and Forster, 
with the approbation of Heindorf. But although we may say 
aiaxvveaOai tl and hXiyxtfjQai tl, yet on appears the true reading. 
For instead of 0 tl , I doubt not that Plato would have written 0. 

B 



2 


PLATO. 


tovto poi ebo£ev clvt&v avaicryyvTOTaTov elvai, et 
prj apa beivov KaXovcnv ovtol Xeyeiv rov TaXriOij 
XeyovTa- el pev yap tovto Xeyovcnv, dpoXoyoCrjv av 
eycoye ov Kara tovtovs elvai prjTOL>p. g ovtoi pev ovv, 
&S 7 rep eyo> Xeyoa, rj tl rj ovbev aXrjOes elprjKaaiv ' 11 
vpets 5’ epov aKovcreaOe 7r aaav tyjv aXr\ 6 eiav. Ov 
pevToi pa At’, go 6 ,vbpes ’ AOrjvaToL , KeKaXXieTrrjpevovs 
ye Xoyovs , 1 gostt ep ol tovtcov, prjpacrC re Kat dvopa- 
(tiv, ovbe KeKocrprjpevovs, aXX’ aKovcreaOe elKjj Xeyo- 
peva rots eniTvyovaiv ovopacn' TnaTevo) yap bUaia 
elvat a Xeya>, k Kal prjbels vp&v TTposboKrjcr&Ta) frXXoos. 
ovbe yap av btfirov TTpeiroi, a> avbpes, Trjbe r?/ t/Xl- 
Kia, cos 7 iep peipaKiut 7 rXaTT 0 VTi Xoyovs els vpas els- 
tevai. Kat pevvoi Kal ttclvv , go avbpes ’ AOrjvaioi , tov¬ 
to vp&v beopai Kal Tra/ne/xat- 1 eav bia t&v avT&v 
Xoyodv aKovrjTe pov aTroXoyovpevov, bi (avirep etc 06 a 
Xeyeiv Kal ev ayopa eirl r<£ v Tpaire&v™ iva vpS>v oi 
ttoXXoI aKrjKoacn, Kal &XXo9i, n prjTe davpa£eiv prjTe 
0opvj3eiv° tovtov eveKa. e^ei yap ovtuktC. vvv eya> 
TTp&Tov €7rt biKacrTrjpiov avafiefirjKa, eTT) yeyovbis TrXeiG* 

KaXovaiv ouroi.] Commonly avrol, which is changed from Bodl. 
Parr. BCD ST. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Yen. b. Flor. a. d. g. h. 
ovtoq is used to indicate contempt, as in Crito C. IV. Sympos. 
p. 181. E. Rep. III. p. 403. A. and elsewhere. 

7 / ti ri ovdev aXijOeg up.] So Bodl. Parr. D S T. Vind. 1. 
Ven. b. a. pr. m. Flor. d. g. h. The rest injudiciously omit fi ti ft. 
S’ ipov is Bekker’s correction for the common reading Si pov. 

Kai iv ayopq, £7r! r. rp.] So Vind. 1. 2. 3. 6. Florr. b. e. i. 
Coisl. Par. B. and others. Commonly Kai iv ayopq, Kai t 7 ri rp. 
See note. 

oi 7ro\\oi aKrjKoam.] ol is wanting in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Flor. 
d. g. h. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Par. DS. Compare tovq tt oXXovg irapk- 
\opai, C. III. 

Itii ytyovojg 7r\£co> s/3dopr}KOVTa.] Bodl. Vind. 1. 4. Flor. d. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


3 


efibopr/KOVTa’P are^ws ovv £evws ex 60 * 1 T V S ev0a.be Xe- 

£*WS. U>STT€p OVV OLV, € t r 7(3 OVTL £eVOS eTVyX^OV WV, 

£vv€yiyvcocrK€T€ brjTTov av pot el ev eKelvp rfj cfiwvr} 
re kcu 7(3 rpoirco eXeyov, ev olsirep eTeOpdpprjv, s Kal 
brj kcu vvv tovto vpwv beopaL hUcaov, cos y epol 
boKW, tov pev rpoTTOv ttjs Ae£ecos eav — laws pev 
yap tl x^Lptov, laws be fieXrlwv av elr] —, avTO be 
7 o€ro aKoireiv Kal tovtw tov vovv TTposex^LV, el bl- 
Kaia Xeyw, rj pr\' bLKaarov pev yap amr] aperr],' pr\- 
ropos be TaXrjdij Xeyetv. 

II. UpwTov pev ovv blKaios elpi aTtoXoyriaaaOai* 
w avbpes * AOrjvaioi , irpos ra TTpwra pov yjfevbrj Kar-rj- 
yoprjpeva Kal tovs rrpwTovs Karrjyopovs, eireira be 
7T pos ra varepa Kal tovs varepovs. ’Ejuoi) yap 7toA- 
A ol KaTTjyopoL yeyovaai irpos vpas, Kal naXai rroXXa 
rjbrj eTY] b Kal ovbev aXrjOes Xeyovres’ ovs eyw paX- 
Xov (f)o/3ovpai rj tovs apcjn v Avvtov, c Kalrrep ovras 
Kal tovtovs beLVovs. aAA* eKeivoi beiVOTepoi, d w av- 
bpes, o*l vpwv tovs ttoXXovs £k iraCbwv T:apaXapfid- 
vovres erreiOov Te Kal KaTrjyopovv epov ovbev aXrj- 

g. h. Par. D S T. omit nXeiio. In Ven. b. 7r Xeio ri is interlined. 
Nevertheless, I doubt not that it is correctly preserved by the others. 

wq y* kpoi £ojcw.] So Vind. 1. 6. Ven. b. Par. D S. Old 
editions ye poi . 

p'ev yap n ^ap*^] Most books with Bodl. omit ri, which is 
found in Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. 

diicaffTov p. y. avTtj aperr).] avrr} v aperr], Vat. Ven. b. 

II. Kai tovq 7 rp. rcar^y.] So almost all MSS. instead of the 
common reading Kai irpoq tovq Trp. k. Immediately afterwards 
Trpog rci varepa is restored from Bodl. Ven. b. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 
6. Flor. d. g. h. instead of the common reading Trpog rd va- 
repov. 

ipov ovdev aXriQkg .] Bodl. and some others epov pdXXov ovCtv 
aX., wrongly. 


4 


PLATO. 


0es, o>s ecrrt tls 2c oKparqs, (TO(j)bs avqp, ra re pe- 
reorpa (PpovTLcrTqs , e /cat ra vrro airavra ave^qrq- 
K<as, Kal tov rjrTOi Xoyov KpeCrrco ttolcovA ovtol, <o 
avbpes ) A0qvaioi, ravr-qv ttjv (pqpqv KaTacrKebacrav- 
T€s, e ol beLVoi elctl pov KarqyopoL * ol yap aKOVovTes 
qyovvrai tovs Tama £qrovvras ovbe 0eovs vopC£eLV. h 
IhrtLTa elaLV ovtol ol KarqyopoL ttoXXoI Kal ttoXvv 
yjpovov qbq KarqyopqKores, ert be Kal ev Tamp Tp 
q\LKLa XeyovTes tt pos vpas, ev p av paXLcrra eTiLarev- 
(rare, 1 iralbes ovres, evLOL 8’ vpcov Kal peLp6.KLa, are- 
yv&s epqpqv KarqyopovvTes, k airoXoyovpevov ovbevos. 
o be ttclvtoov aXoyddTarov, otl ovbe ra ovopara olov 
re am&v elbevaL Kal ehrelv, irXqv eX tls Koapubo- 
7TOLOS rvyyaveL &v. octol Se <p0ov co Kal bLafioXp xp<*>- 
pevoL 1 vpas aveTTeL0ov, ol be Kal avrol ireireLcrpevoL 

2u)icpaTr]Q, <ro<pog avrjp .] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor. d. g. Par. D S. Commonly avrjp < 7o<pog. 

ra inro yrjg^] So edit. Bas. 2. Bodl., all MSS. except Ven. & 
Vind. 2. 5. Flor. c. d. and a few others. Commonly £i7to yrjv. 
Compare C. III. C. X. For aTravra, found in Bodl. Ven. b. 
Flor. d. g. h. Vind. 6. Par. D S., the common reading was rravra. 

Kal ttoXvv xpovov rj8rj.~\ So Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 3. 
4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S. Old editions with Bekker Kal 
ttoXvv rj8rj xpovov, although the latter is the usual collocation of 
the words, as it oXXa ij8rj errj a few lines above, and in C. XVIII. 
Toaavra rj8rj trrj , yet I did not wish to reject the reading of the 
MSS., especially since it may be justified by the consideration that 
ttoXvv xpwov forms a single notion, the words signifying ‘ for a 
long time.’ 

rralStg ovreg, Ivioi 8' v/iwv.] So Bodl. Ven. b. Flor. h. 
Parr. D S. 8 ’ was commonly omitted. 

d Tig K<t)/jup8o7Toibg r.] Commonly Kivpipbioiroiog, which is 
corrected from Vat. Ven. £. a. b. Flor. d. g. h. Vind. 1. 2. 5. 6. 
Zitt. Par. B. See Pierson, ad. Moer. p. 240., who has rightly 
judged that the common form ought every where to be expelled from 
the writings of Plato. 





APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


5 


aWoVS 7T€L0OVT€S, OVTOL 7 T&VTeS CLTTOp&TaTOL el (TlV’ m 
ovbe yap avafiifiao-acrOai olov r ec ttlv avT&v ev- 
ravOoL n ovb e\ey£at ovbeva, aXA* avayKT] artyvcds 
ooSTTtp crKLap.aye.iv aTroXoyovpevov re Kal eXeyyeiv prj- 
btvos a-noKpivoptvov. ’Aftcoo-are ovv Kal vpels,° oosirep 
eyco X^yco, btrrovs pov rot)? Karrjyopovs yeyovevat, ere- 
povs pev roi/? a/m KaT^yoprjcravTas, erepovs be rovs 
7 raXat, oi)s eya> Xeya). Kal olriOrjTe beIv irpos eKeCvovs 
Trp&Tov pe cnroXoyricraaOaL • Kal yap vpels eKelvcov 
irporepov r)Kova-are KarrjyopovvTOiv, Kal 7 roXv pa\\ov 
fj T&vbe t&v varepov. 

Eiev. aiToXoy-qreov bri, p a> avbpes * AOrjvaloi, Kal 
eTH\eipr\Teov vp&v e^eXicrOai ttjv biafioXriv , q rjv v\ nets' 
ez> 7 roXX<3 XP° V( ? ^°X €T€ > ravrrjv ev ovtoos oXlyoo ypo- 
*><*>. (3ovXo(prjv pev ovv hv tovto ovtco yevecrQai T , el 
tl apeivov Kal vplv Kal epol, Kal 7 rXeW rt /xe 770477 - 
aai a'noXoyovpevov' olpai Se avro yaXenov elvai, Kal 
ov Travv pie XavOavei olov eoriv. opoos tovto pev iron 

diTTovg iuov tovq KaTiiyopovg.'] rovg is omitted in Aid. Bas. 1. 
Steph. against almost all the MSS. A few lines above rt after airo- 
Xoyovpsvov, is wanting in Vat. Flor. d. Par. C. It has been 
erased in Par. B. Flor. a. But there is no need of change. 

Iv 7 roWqi XP° V V £<T X £T£ ’] Commonly tyerc, which is cor- 
rected from Ven. b. Par. D S. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. g. h. After¬ 
wards, old editions, Iv ovruxrt 6\iy<p XP • But ovTiog is found in 
Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Parr. B C D S. 

tovto pev i to).'] Aid. Bas. l.^rw, which form Buttm. rejects 
Ausfuhr. Griech. Sprachlehre, Vol.I. p.550. ed. 1. The true reading 
is found in Bas. 2. Stephan., and in the best as well as in far the 
most MSS. All the old and modern editions have opwg 8k tovto p. 
But 8k is omitted in Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4.6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Par. DS., nor do I think that any one will desire its restoration. 

B 3 


6 


PLATO. 


0777/ TO) 0€<j> (f)(X0V , T(t) be Z'O/XO) TieiCrreOV Kal <*770- 

A oyrjreov. 

III. ’ AvaXdfioopiev ovv ef apxys, rCs rj Karr]- 
yopia ecrrtv, e£ rjs rj epir] biafioXr) yiyovev, fj brj 
Kal ttl(tt€vq)v MkXrjros pie eypd\f/aro ty]v yparpr/v 
ravrr)v. & Ete^. rC by A eyovres bie(3aXXov oi bia- 
fiaXXovres; co?7rep ovv Karyyopoov ryv avriopocriav 
bei avayv&vai avr&v b ^(OKparys abiKei Kal Trepiep- 
yd^era t c Ctjt&v ra re V770 y?/s Kal ra €77 ovpavia, 
Kal rov rjrroa Xoyov KpeCrrco ttoi&v, Kal aXXovs ravra 
ravra bibdarKCvv. Toiavry ris karri' ravra yap ecapare 
Kal avrol ev rfj * Apiaro^dvovs Kwpi(tibiq, d SioKpdrrj 
nva e/cet nepifyepopevov, <j)do-Kovra re aepo/3areiv 
Kal dXXyv TtoXXyv (f)Xvapiav (})Xvapovvra, &v eya> 
ovbev ovre pieya ovre apuKpov * 7rept €77ata>. Kal o^x 

III. rig ry Karijyopla e<mV] kariv, commonly omitted with 
Bas. 2., is retained in Bodl. Vat. Ven. a. b. Vind. 1. 6. Florentine 
and all the rest except Vind. 2. 3. 4. 5. 

7cl(tt£V(ov Ms'Xryrof.] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. Par. D. 
Flor. b. c. i. Angel., and that which Bekker has marked g. Com¬ 
monly Ms'Xtrof; why this should be altered, we have discussed, 
Euthyphro p. 7. But Eustathius, Odyss. v. 106. p. 42. Vol. II. 
ed. Lips., defends MeXtrof, deriving it from peXi ; but in that case 
the penultima would be short. 

ra re vtto yik«] Ven. S. with Steph. yrjv: the others have 
the genitive, see C. II. Afterwards Bodl. Flor. g. h. Vind. 6. 
Ven. b. Vat. icai ra ovpavia. But hrovpavia is to be preferred 
even on account of the opposition of the words ra inro yfjg. 

aXXovg ravra ravra didaaicivv.'] Commonly dXXouf ravra 
SidavKiov, which is changed from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 4. 
Flor. h. Par. D S. 

ravra ydp iwpart.] Commonly roiavra, which we have not 
hesitated to change from Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6. Flor. d. 
e. g. h. Par. D S. Afterwards 'EuKpdrr] for Soxcpdrjyv, Bodl. 
Vind. 6. Par. D S., and perhaps Vat. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


1 


o)S aTifj.a((ov { Aeyco tt)v TOLavrr)v k'nKTTruxrjv, et rts 

7T6/3t T&V TOLOVTCOV CTOffioS icTTl. /JLT] 77009 eyO) 1U7TO 

M eXrfrov roa-avras bUas fyvyoipi! aAAa yap Zp .01 
tovtcov t 00 avbpts * AOi^va'iOL, ovbtv pl4t€(ttl. ptap- 
rvpas b ’ avrovs vpioijv tovs ttoWovs irapeyopLai, Kat 
aftw vpias g aWr/Xovs bibaaKtiv re Kat <£pa£etp, oaot 
ejuo£ TuaTTore aKtjKoaTe biaXtyopicvov’ ttoXXoI 8e vptwp 
ot tolovtol den. <£pa£ere ovv aXXrjXois, et 77co7rore 
^ (TpLLKpOV T] p.4ya 7]KOVa-€ TLS vp&v epLOV TT€pl T&V 
tolovtoov StaAeyo/xeVotr Kat eK tovtcov ypcoo-eo-0e, h 
otl ToiavT eart Kat raAAa -Trept epioti a ot ttoXXoI 
Xeyovenv. 

IV. ’AAAa yap odre rovroop opdep ecrrtp, ovSe 
y* a et rtpoj aKr]KoaT€, &)? eyco TraibeveLV kT:Lyeipoi 
avQpdiTTOvs Kal yprjpLaTa 7rparroptat, b ovbe tovto aXrj - 
0es. e7ret Kat rooro ye /u-ot c 8oKet KaXov dvat, et 
rt? otoj r etr; d iraibeveiv avOpco ttovs oosirep TopyCas 
re 6 Azovt'ivos, kul UpobiKos 6 Ketoj, Kat T mrCas 

Toaavrag SiKag (f>vyoipu.~\ Commonly (pevyoipi, which is 
changed from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Par. D S. g. For MeXtVov, Bodl., here also, as always, MeXjjroo. 

dXXa yap spot tovtov .] Commonly yap pot tu>v toiovtojv, 
which I have changed from Bodl. Par. D S. In Vat. Flor. d. 
Vind. 1. 4. 6. is written, aXXd y&p tovtojv spot. 

paprvpag S’ avrovg.~\ Commonly av, for which, aurovg is 
found in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S. 

Kal Ik tovtojv yvoxreaOs.^ So Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S. Commonly tovtov, which Bekker pre¬ 
serves. See note. 

IV. ovSe y d Tivog.] Bekk. has corrected ovre ye, contrary to 
the authority of MSS., and without any necessity. 

tovto ye pot ^oicel.] Bekk. with Par. S. Vat. a. b. Zitt. y 
tpoi S. No necessity, since the emphasis should not be laid on 
the pronoun. See note on Protagor. p> 342. A. Criton. C. V. 

IJpoSiKog 6 TCeTof.J Bodl. Ven. a. a. Vind. 2, 5. 6. Flor. g. 


8 


PLATO. 


6 ’HAeios. tovtmv yap eKaaros, go dvbpes, olos r 
earlv Uov els eKacrTrjv r&v rrokeorv rovs veovs, oh 
e^ecrn t&v eavr&v ttoX.ltS>v irpoiKa £vveivai <o hv fiov- 
koavrai, tovtovs iretOovcn* ras eKelvorv £vvovalas airo- 
knrovras cr<p(ai £vveivai xPW ara btbovras Kal \dpLV 
TTposeihevai. errel Kal akkos avr\p ecrn Ylapios f ev6a.be 
(ro(f)6s, ov eya) fia6op.r]v embr]p.ovvTa • erv\ov yap 
irposekOtov avbpt, os rereAefce® xPW ara (rotyio-rah 
7rXeta) rj (yprravres oi akkoi, KaAA^a ra> 'ImrovCKOV. 1 * 
tovtov ovv avr]p6p.r]v — earov yap ai»ra> bvo vlee 
— K akkia, r\v 6’ eyd>, el p,ev aov rw vlee TTiako) 

rj p.6ayoi eyeveadr]v, e!yop.ev av avroiv erTiarar^v Aa- 
fieiv Kal pua-OuKraa-OaL 1 , os <-p.ekkev avrb) Kakco re 
KayaOa) noiijoreiv rrjv rrposr]Kovarav aperr/v • rjv S’ hv 
ovros rj rS>v IrnriK&v tls rj rcov yeoopyiK&v' vvv b ’ 
erreibr] avOpcorror earov, rlva avroiv ev v& zx €LS * 7rL ~ 
oT&rrjv kafielv ; rls rrjs roiavrr\s aperrjs, rrjs avdpor- 
Tfivrjs re Kal irokiriKrjs, eTTiorrjpuov ecrrCv; oTpiai yap 
<re eaKe(f)0ai bia rrjv rS>v vlecov Krrjcnv. %am ns, eefrrjv 
ey<6, rj oZ ; Udw ye, ?? S’ 6s. T Zs, rjv b' iycZ, 
Kal TTobairos ; Kal ttoctov bibdaKei; E Zijvos, €<f>rj, go 

Coislin. Klof, as Rep. X. p. 600. C. Protagor. p. 314. C. Ari- 
stoph. Ran. 997. ov XT og ak\a KTof. Yet the inscriptions in 
Broensted. Itiner. N. 7. and 10. plainly have KEIOI ; andTheocrit. 
Id. XVI. 44. calls Simonides aoidov rov K rjiov : whence the form 
KToc ought not to be admitted. See Ast’s Comment, ad Protag. 
p. 44. It may be added that the old grammarians and the copyists 
by T long understood si, according to Bastius on Gregor. Corinth, 
p. 892.; the diphthong, besides, is pronounced something like i. 

Kal 'Iiririag 6 ’HAeTof.] Coisl. Kal Ttt iriag tik 6 ’HA., which 
Bekk. adopted. 

of TsrkXsKe xp.] Commonly tstsXsksi : improperly. The per¬ 
fect is found in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Par. D S. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


9 


ScoKpare?, Ilaptos, iTevre pLv6)V. k Kat eyob tov E vr\- 
vov €fxaK(ipLcra } et <09 aXrjO&s e^et 1 Tavrrjv rr/v re- 
X z/? 7 z; kol ovtc os e/x/xeAcos bibacrKe t. eyw yow Kat avroy 
eKaXXvvop.r]v re Kat rjftpvvopLrjv av, et rjTnaTapirjV ravra' 
aAA ov yap e7rtcrra/xat, m a> avbpes ’ Adrjvaioi. 

V. 'Tirokbifioi ovv av rty vpi&v tcrtoy, ’AAA’, a> 
2&>Kparey, ro croz; rt eort 'npayp.a; uoOev at 8ta- 
(3oXal trot avrat yeyovacnv; ov yap brjTiov crov ye, 
ovbev a t&v aXXcvv 7reptrrorepox' b irpaypLarevopievov, 
eireira Toa-avTY] (fir/pui re Kat Aoyoy yeyovev, et /x ?7 rt 
eirparres aXXoiov rj ot ttoXXol. A eye ouz> fjpuv, tl eanv, 
Iva /xr) /^ety 7rept aot) avTooyjebiafapLev* Tavrl p,oi 
boK€L dticata Xeyeiv 6 A eycov, Kayo) vpxv 7retpacro/xat 
airobei^aL, rl ttot eart ro?fo, 6 ep,ot i:e'noir)Ke to 
re oro/xa Kat rr/y bia^oXr\v. A aKOvere bij. nal tcras 
pLev bo£co Tialv vpL&v TTaC^iv, ev pevroi la-re, tt acav 
vpuv T7\v aXriOeiav ep<S. e ’Eyw yap, a> avbpes ’A 6r}~ 
vaiot, bt ovbev aAA’ ^ Sta crocplav riva tovto to 
ovopa ecryr]Ka. irolav brj cro(j)(av ravrrjv; rjrrep earlv 
tacoy avOpcoTtLvr) ao(pia. r<5 ourt yap KLvbvvevco rav- 
tt)v eXvai ao(f)6s • oSrot 8e rax’ az>, ot)y aprt eXeyov, 
pe((o) nva rj Kar &v0pcorrov f aocjrlav aotyoX elev, i) 

tl (og aXrjOcjg tX £l 0 Commonly ex ot » which * s changed from 
Par. D S. Flor. d. Afterwards tpfjitXwg didavicti, instead of the 
common reading tpp. didaaicoi is found in Bodl. Ven. &. b. 
Vind. 3. Flor. e. g. h. Zitf. Par. D S. 

V. 'Y7roXa/3ot ovv av rtf.] Commonly av ovv omitting after¬ 
wards vpijjv. The pronoun is found in Bodl. Vat. Ven. a. b. S. 
Vindobb. all, Flor. a, b. e. g. h. Zitt. Parr. B C D S. g.; but ovv 
av, Vind. 6. Ven. b. On the other hand some have omitted either 
ovv or av. 

'iva ptj vpug 7rt pi <rov.] Commonly 'iva ptj icai rjptIg, against 
all the MSS. 

fj ovk tx < °> Tl ^7 W ‘] Commonly o rt Xlyw, which is changed 


10 


PLATO. 


ovk ex 00 * Ti ^y°>' °v y^p brj eycoye avrrjv e7rt<rrapat, 
aAA’ ostls (prjcrl \/red8erat re Kal hit biafiokfj rfj epfj 
Aeyet. g kcl( poi, co avbpes ’ A0r\vaioi, prj 6opvfiri(rr)T€, 
prjbt av bo£co ti vpiv peya Ae'ye iv h ov yap ipov 
ep<5 tov A oyov, ov hv A iycv, aAA’ eis a^ioyptcov 1 vp'iv 
tov Kiyovra avoCcra). rrjs yap eprjs, et br/ tls Zvtl 
( ro(f)ia Kal ota, k pdprttpa vpiv irape^opai tov Oeov 
tov iv AeAt^oty. Xaipec^corra yap 1 lctc ttov. ovtos 
epos re eratpos r\v e/c viov, Kal vp&v rw 7rAr/0et 
eratpos m re Kal £vvi(f)vye ttjv (pvyrjv TavTrjv Kal ped 
vpS>v KaT?j\0€. Kal tore dr/, otos Xatpet/xioy, wj 
(rcfrobpos e<£’ 6 ti oppyaeie. Kal bij n rore Kal ets 
AeA<£oi/9 k\0oiv tToXprjat tovto pavT€V(racr0ai, n — 
Ka£ oTT€p Ae'yco, pr) 0opv/3etre, <o avbpes. fjpeTo 
yap brj, et rts° epoS efy <ro(/>corepo9. aveikev ovv rj 
T\v0LaV prjbtva ao^uTcpov etrnt. Kal tovtcov 7rept 6 
abe\(j)6s vpiv avTOv q ovToal paprup-rjo-eL, iireibrj Zkclvos 
rereAevr^Ke. 

VI. 2Ke'\/racr0e 6e, <5v ereKa raura Ae'yco* pe'AAco 
yap vpas biba£eiv, o0tv pot rj bLafiokr} ytyove. Tav- 
Ta yap eya> aKovcras £ve0vpovpr\v ourcocrt, Tt 7rore 
Ae'yet 6 0eo9, Kal rt 7rore atiarrerat; eya> yap br] 

from Bodl. Vat. Yen. b. Vind. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. 
Both may be correctly said. See Poppo ad Cyrop. I. 2. 10. 

pt) 0opv(3r](TriTE, prjde civ &5£w.] Commonly pi) 6. prjdev, av 
8o£(o, which is corrected from Bodl. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Par. D S T. 
Ven. b. Flor. g. h. 

yap tart 7 rov.] Commonly drjirov, against the authority of 
the MSS. 

prj 9opv(itlT€.'] So Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 15. Flor. h. Par. C D S. 
Commonly OopvfifjTe, contrary to usage, which was seen to require 
correction by Bast, ad Greg. Corinth, p. 1005. Bodl. OopvfielaQe. 

VI. ^KtxpaaOe tik, ojv cWfca.] Commonly dr), which is changed 
from Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Ven. b. Par. D ST. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


II 


ovt€ peya ovre apiKpov £vvoiba epavrii) cro(f)bs wv a 
n ovv ttot€ Aeyei (j)dcrK(ov epe aocfxoTaTov eXvai ; ov 
yap brjirov \lrevbeTaC ye* ov yap Oepis avT<o. b Kal 
7toAvv pev yjpovov rjitopovv, rt 7rore Aeyet, c eneira po- 
yi? 7r<£vv 67rt (jr}Tr]crLV avrov TOiavrriv nva erpairopriv. 
rjXOov eirC Ttva t&v boKovvraiv crocp&v elvat, &s evravda, 
€LTT€p ttov, eAe'y^cov to pavre'iov Kal cnrocpavauf r<a 
XPWW* on Ovtocti epov aocfKOTepos ecrn, crv 8’ epte 
€(f)7]cr6a. biao’Koir&v ovv tovtov — ovopan yap ov- 
bev beopat, Xeyeiv, rjv be TL$ TCOV 7ro\LTLK(t)V, 7 TpOS OV 
eya> (tkoti&v tolovtov tl e7 ra6ov, to avbpes ’AOrjvaToi 
— Kal btaXeyopevos avrw, e8o£e poL d ovtos 6 dvrjp 
boKeiv pev eivai cro(f)bs aAAois re 7 toAAois avdpanrois 
Kal paXiorra eavr<3, elvat b ’ ov. KaTretra eTT€Lpa>pr)v 
avT<p beiKVvvai, on ololto pev eTvai aocf)6s, elrj 8’ 
ov. evTevOev ovv rovra> re cn:r)y66pr]v Kal ttoXXols 
tg>v TTapovroiv. Trpos IpavTov 8’ ovv dTnbiv eAoyi- 
Coprjv , e on Tovtov piev rov avOpanrov eya> crot^core- 
po's eipr Kivbvvevei pev yap fjpa>v ovberepos ovbev 
KaXov KayaOov elbevai, aAA’ ovros ptev oierai re ei- 
8eVai ovk ei8(os, eyw 8e, oosirep ovv ovk oiba, ovbk 
oiopai. &u/ca yovv tovtov ye apiKpu tlvl avra> tov- 


iiretra poyig. ] Commonly poXig. Moytf is found in all the 
best and most numerous MSS., and I have no doubt that it ought 
to be every where restored to Plato; see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 345. 
The distinction instituted by Thom. Mag. p. 619. is trifling. 

on OvtoctI Ip ov <r.] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Yind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor. d. e. g. In Par. D S. is written ovroaivkpov . Old editions 
o vtoq yk pov, which Bekker, with Par. C B., has changed into 
ovrog y ipov. 

ovSkV KaXov KayaOov eiSevai.] KaXov ovd ’ ayaOov, on the 
authority of Bas. 2. Bodl. Ven. a. b. all the Vind. and Florentine. 
In the other MSS. KaXbv KayaOov. 


12 


PLATO. 


T(p <ro(f)a)T€pos etvat/ otl a prj olba ovbe otopdL el* 
bevdi. evTev0ev eir dXXov fjd t&v eKelvov boKovv - 

TCOV 0-0(j)(6T€p(6V elvdL, Kdl pOL TdVTCL TdVTd ebo£e‘ 
Kdl eVTdvOd KdK€LV(p Kdl dXXoLS TToXXoXs dTTrj\0o- 
pr] y . 

VII. Mera raor ovv ijbr] ecf)e£r}s fjd, dlcr0dvo- 
pevos pev Kdl Xvirovpevos Kdl bebLdos, on cnrr]- 
\0dv6prjv, a ' opcos be ovoyKaXov eboKei eXvdi to tov 
0eov irepl irXeldTOV tto leXcr0 ol. heov ovv, o-KOirovvTL b 
tov xpr](rpbv tl XeyeL, eirl cltt dVTds tovs tl boKovv- 
TdS elbeVdL. Kdl V7] TOV KVVd, C oi) dvbpes i A07]VdXoL, 
— be l ya.p 7rpb$ ' vpds TdXrj0rj XeyeLV — 77 prjv ey a> 
eTTd0ov tl tolovtov’ oi pev fu£Aiora d evboKipovvTes 
ebo£a.v poi oXlyov be lv tov TiXelarov evbeeis elvdi Cy- 
tovvtl Kara tov 0eov, clXXol be boKodvres tydvXoTe- 
poi eiTLeLKeo-TepoL eXvoL dvbpes npos to cppovlpoos eyetv. 
bei brj vpiv tt]v eprjv 7 tX dvrjv embeL^di, cqstt ep tto- 
VOVS ’TLVCLS 7 TOVOVVTOS, LVd pOL Kdl dVeXeyKTOS 7] pdV- 
reia yevoiro e . Mera yhp tovs 7toXltlkovs fjd eirl rov? 
7 TOLTJTCLS TOVS T€ TCOV TpdyCpbLCOV Kdl rOl»S TCOV bl0V- 
p<xp(3aov Kdl tovs clXXovs, cos evTdv0d h r dVTocfoco- 
p(p KdTdXr)y\r6pevos epdVTov dpa0ecrTepov eKelvcov ov- 

Td. dVdXdpftdVCOV OVV dVTCOV Td TTOLTlpdTd, d pOL 
eboKeL pdXurTd 7re7rpdypdTev(T0dL ovtols/ bir/pcoToov 
Civ dVTOVS TL XeyOLeV, LV dpd TL Kdl pdV06.VOLpL 
7 Tdp dVTcov. dlcryyvopdL ovv vpXv ehreXv, a> dvbpes, 
TdXr)0rj‘ opoos be prjTeov. ws eiros yhp ehrelv, 6X1- 
yov ovtcov dVTes ol TTdpovTes civ j3eXTL0v eXeyov 
TTepl &v dVTol eireiroLriKecrdv . s eyvoov ovv Kdl irepl tcov 

VII. Irsov ovv, (tkottovvti t. xp*] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 
Flor. g. h. Par. D S. Old editions, Kai i'evcu (tkottovvti. See note. 

iyvcov ovv Kai 7repi r.] a{>, commonly added after ovv, is omit- 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES, 


13 


TTOLY]T(£>V €V 6\Lyip TOVTO, OTl OV O’0<f)ia TTOLOL€V 0. 
ttolol€V, aXXa (pvcrei nvl Kal evOovo-idCovres, oosnep 
ol 6eo[i6.vreis Kal oi xP r l (T l x ^ 0 ^ h kcu yup ovtol Ae- 
yovcri pev 7:oXXa Kal KaXa, Xcracn be ovbev &v A eyov- 

<TL. TOLOVTOV TL /JiOL £^)£wr](TaV 7 TClOoS Kal Ol 7TOL7]Tal 
TieirovOoTes. Kal ajua fjcrOopLrjv avr&v bia rr\v ttoCt]- 
<tiv olop,ev<ov Kal raXXa crotpcoraTiov elvai avOpairoov, 1 
a ovk rjaav. cnTrja ovv Kal evrevQev, ra> avnp ol- 
ofxevos irepiyeyovevai, <07 rep Kal r&v ttoXitikoUv. 

VIII. TeXevT&v ovv £ttI tovs xeiporeyvas fja • 
ifiavT(p yap £vvr\beiv ovbev eraarapievip, &>s enos 
ehreiv, tovtovs be y ybeiv on evprjcroipii 7roAAa Kal 
KaXa emaTapLevovs. Kal tovtoiT piev ovk e^evaOriv? 
aAA’ TjTTicTTavTO a ey a> ovk rjTncrraiJirjv KaC [xov rav- 
rr] crocfxoTepoi rjerav. aAA’, co avbpes * A6r\vaioi, rav- 
tov juot ebo£av €\eiv apaprr]pa, oTrep Kal oi T:oir}TaC, 
Kal oi ayadol br]puovpyoi ’ b bia to ttjv reyvy]v KaX&s 


ted in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. e. g. h. 
Par. D S T g. Bekker, from one MS. alone* Par. S. pr., has given 
ireTroirjKsaav, without the augment. 

TToioZev & iroioit j/] 8 7r oioZev in ed. Steph. is omitted by mistake. 

Tip avT(p oioptvog TTtpty.J Bekk. r<p avnp avrwv oiopevog, 
ex Par. H. g. Angel., which we have been unwilling to adopt. In 
the preceding word, ivrtvQtv, there is a latent pronominal signifi¬ 
cation which renders avrwv unnecessary. 

VIII. Zvvydtiv ovdtv—yduv on —] All the MSS., as well as 
the old editions have Zvvydeiv and ydtiv : so that we are ig¬ 
norant from whence Bekker adopted £vvy$r] and ydy. Unless, 
perhaps, he followed Panaetius de Platone testimonium in Eustath. 
ad Odyss. p. 1946. Rom. T. II. p. 305. ed. Lips. Compare Etym. 
Magn. p. 419. 13. Dawesii Miscell. p. 427 sq. e. Kidd. Schneider. 
Praefat. ad Remp. XLII sqq. We have thought some respect due 
to the numerous and valuable MSS. which we have collated for this 
edition. 


C 


14 


PLATO. 


e£epya£ecr6ai eKacrTos rjfjCov Kal TaXXa ra pceyiaTa 
crocfxoTaTos elvai, c kcu avTcov avTrj rj TiXrippeXeia eKei- 
vr\v T7]V (TOepCaV a7TeKpV7TTeV’ d COST , €pi€ epaVTOV CLVE- 
pOOTCbV V7T€p TOV ypYjapLOV * TTOTCpd be£aCp,T]V aV OVTCOS 

cosirep eyoo eyeiv, payee, tl crcxpos cov rrjv eKelvuov cro- 
(j)Lav, pi]Te apaOrjs tt]v aptadiav/ rj apefooTepa h 
eKelvoi eyovaiv eyew. aTreKpLvdprjv ovv epavTtp Kal 
T(S yprjapio, otl poi XvcnTeXol bosTrep eyco eyetv. 

IX. ’Ek TavTTjcrL hr} rrjs e^eTdaecos, co avbpes 
AOijvaloL, TroXXal pev aneyOeiaC poi yeyovacn Kal 
oXai yaXeTTCtiTarai* 1 Kal (SapvTaTai, cosre noXXas bia- 
fioXas air avrcov yeyovevau, ovopa be tovto Xeyea- 
dai, crocpos elvai. b olovrat yap pe eKaarore ol 7ra- 
povres ravra avrov elvai aocjoov, a hv aXXov e£e- 
Xey$ to* to Se KLvbvvevei, co avbpes * A6r)valoi, t<3 ovtl 
o deos crocjobs elvab, c Kal ev T(S ypr]apcp tovtg) 
tovto Xeyeiv, on ?) avOpcoTtLvr) aocfoia oXCyov tivos 
a£la eoT4 Kal ovbevos ,d Kal cfoaiveTai tovt ov Xeyeiv 


ojqt’ ip'e kpavrbv aveporav] Commonly wot’ kpi Kal avrov 
av. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. others, Cigre pe ip. Bodl. has 
preserved the true reading. 

'oti pot XvtnrsXol] Commonly XvaireXei. The optative is 
found in Bodl. Ven. a. b. 3. Vind. 1. 2. 5. Flor. 1. Par. B. H. 
Angel., which we have followed. 

IX. Ek TavT7]<n dr/ rrjg !£.] Commonly Ik Tavrr\g rjdrj, which 
arose from incorrect pronunciation. The true reading is given in 
Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 4. Par. T. A little further, ’AOrivaZoi is 
omitted in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 6., and others. 

(paiverai tovt ov Xeye iv] Commonly tovtov. Most MSS., 
and those of the best authority, have tovtov . Wolf has correctly 
given tovt * ov Xeyeiv, with the approbation of Hermann, Mus. 
Antiquit. Studior. p. 149, but Schaefer disapproves of this reading, in 
Lamb. Bos. 705. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


15 


tov 2a>Kp&Tr), e TrposKexpwOcu tlo e\ tx<3 ovopiaTL, 
e/xe 'irapabeLyp.a TTOLovp,evos, cbsjrep av el cXitol/ otl 
Ovtos’ vp.G)v, a) avOpomoi, (rocpcoraros eanv, ostls 
obsirep 2i(OKp6,rr)s eyvcvKev, otl ovbevbs cl£los eori 
rfj a\r}6eCa irpos crotyiav. ravr ovv eyw piev ert kcll 
vvv Ttepubiv (r]TU> kcll epevvG) Kara tov Oeov, kcll 

T&V CLCTT&V KCLL T&V £eV(OV S CLV TLVa OLMpiCLL (TO(f)bv 
etvaL' KCLL €7T€Lbdv pLOL piTJ boKjj, T(t) 0€(S /3or]0(bv 

evbeUvvp,aL, h OTL ovk eCTTL OrOfpOS. KCLL VTTO TCLVTT]S Trjs 
a(T)(o\LCLS OVT€ TL T&V T7JS TTOkeCOS 7TpCL^aL pLOL (T\o\r] 

yeyovev cl£lov Xoyov oi We tu>v olKeCoov, dAA’ ev 7revLa 
pLvpCa elpu 1 bLa ttjv tov Oeov XaTpeCav . 

X. Ylpbs be tovtols oi veoL pcoL h tclko\ov6ovvt€S, 
ols plclXlo-tcl cryokri ccttlv, oi t&v ttXov(tl(vtclt(ov , a 
avTopLCLTOL yaLpovcrLV aKovovTes e£eTa(ppLev(ov tgjv 
avOpcbncov, kclI clvtol ttoXXclkls epee pLLpiovvTaL , ei ra 
ein\eLpovo‘Lv h aXXovs e^eTaCeLV kcltt€LTcl, oTpaL , 
evpCcrKovcTL ttoXXtjv dipOovLCLV olop^evcov p,ev elbevaL 
tl avOptoiTow, elboTtoV be dXCya rj ovbev. c evTevOev 
ovv oi vi t avToiv e£eTa£6pievoL epiol opyiCfiVTaL, 

tigirep av ei eii roi] ei is omitted in the MSS. 

7 repuojv Zt]Tw] Commonly e7riZt]Tu>, which has been changed 
on the authority of the best and most numerous MSS. A 'little 
further, Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. and a few others, read Kal t&v aorGiv 
Kai Zevuv. 

X. aKOVOVTeg i%era£o pevojv] Commonly eXeyxopeviov, which 
has been changed from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. 
d. g. h. Parr. D S T. A little further on, the old editions have 
eidevai n rwv avOponriov: the article is rejected in Vat. Ven. b. 
Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. 

oXiya Y) ovdev ] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Par. DST. Editt. i) o\iya fi ovdev, which Bekker also has re¬ 
tained. 


16 


PLATO. 


aAA’ ov\ avTOLS, d kcu kZyovmv, a>s 'EcoKpdrrjs rcy 
eori fJLiaptoTCLTOS KCU bia(f)0€Lp€L TOVS vZoVS. KCU ZlTCL- 
bdv tls avrovs Zpaira, o n ttoiQv kcu 6 n biba- 
(tkgov, cx 0V(TL l^ v chtdv, aAA* dyvoovnv, iva 

bZ p,7) boK&criv airopeLV, ra Kara TrdvToav ra> v <piko - 
< TO(f)ovvTa>v Trpoyjeipa ravra kZyovcnv, on ra /xere ay- 
pa Ka^ ra v7ro y^9, e Kat 0eoi/9 /x?) vopCCciv, kcu tov 
Tjfrrco koyov Kpetrrco ttoiciv. ra yap dkr)0rj, olpai, 
ovk hv kOcXoLcv kZyetv, on Kardbijkoi yiyvovrai irpos- 
7TOLovp.€VOL { picv clbivcu, dbores be ovbev. are ovv, oi- 
picu, (pikonpLOL ovres kcu acfyobpol kcu 7roAAot, Kat 
^wreray pevcos kcu 7n0avS)s A Zyovres 8 irepl Zpov, Zp- 
77€Tr\rjKa(TLV vp&v ra <ora h Kat rrdkai Kat arpobp&s 
biaftdkkovTes. Zk tovtcov ko.1 MeA rjTos poi Z7tZ0€to 
Kal *A vvtos Kat Avkoov, MekrjTOS pev virep t&v ttoitj- 
Ttav 1 ay06pevos, *Avvtos be vrrep tcov brjpiovpy&v Kal 
T&V TTokiTiKUtV, AvKGOV 6e VTT€p T(x)V pr]TOp(OV. &STC, 
07 rep dp\6pevos Zy a> ekeyov, 0avpd(pip av, et otos 
r €lt]v eyed vp&v Tavrrjv rrjv biafiokrjv efeAeaflat Zv 

aXX* ovx avToig ] Commonly bpylZovrai, ovk avrotg. The 
reading in the text has been preserved in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 
1. 4. 6. Flor. d. e. g. Par. T. In others it is opyi^ovrai, ovx 
avToig . 

on ra peretopa —] Steph. on tcl p. Kal ra vtto yr}g tyrei Kal 
Oeovg pr) vopi^ei Kal r. ry. X. Kp. Trout. But £ rjrtl is omitted in 
Aid. Bas. 1. 2. Bodl. Vat. Ven. a. b. S. the six Vindobb. all the 
Florentine, Coisl. Parr., and others, so that it is impossible to trace 
its origin. The infinitives are given in almost all the MSS. The 
common reading is doubtless due to those who did not accurately 
observe the structure of the words. 

fcai ZvvTtTaypkvwg] Some MSS., Zvvrerapkvojg. 

Kal 7raXai Kal (T<podpwg £.] Steph. Kal TtaXai Kal vvv Kal <r0. f 
contrary to the authority of the best MSS. In Bodl. the reading is 
Kai vvv ffQodpiog. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


17 


ovTOds oA£ya> ypovcp, ovroi rroWrjV yeyowiav. TaOr 
€cmv vfiiv, S) avbpcs * AOrjvaioi, raXr] 6 rj, k kcli vpas 
ovre iiiya ovre a-pLKpov aTTOKpvyphptvos eya> Xiya> 
ovb' VTrocrmXaptvos . 1 Kai tol olba o^ebov, on to ls 
avroLs arrtyQavopaL. 6 kcu T€Kpr\pLov, on raX-rjOrj 
Aeyco Kal on avrrj Zcrriv rj biafioXr) rj iprj Kal ra 
atria ravra cort. Kat k6v re vvv k6v re avdis m $1- 
rri(rr]T€ ravra, ovreos evprfcrere. 

XI. riept /i€is OVV &V OL TTp&TOL pLOV KaTT/yopOL 
Karrjyopovv axmj earn) iKavrj cnroXoyCa a Trpos vpas • 
7 rpos bi MeArjroz; rov ayadov re Kat <PlX6ttoX.lv , b 
ws (prjai, Kal rovs varipovs /xera ravra 7T€Lp6(ro- 
pai airokoydcrdaL. av0LS yap bri, cost: ep eripcov 
tovtcov ovrcov Karrjyopcov, Xaj3a>pr)v av c rr\v rovroov 
avrcopocriav. e)(et de rrcos <SSe ,d oKparr] (prjalv abi- 
k€lv rovs re viovs bLa<p0dpovra Kal 0eovs oi)s f] 
ttoXls vopi(tL ov vopi^ovra, erepa Se baLpovLa KaLVa. 
to pev brj iyKXr]pa roiovrov iarL' rovrov 6e rov 
tyK-Xriparos €V iKaarov e£eracra)/xer. <£770-1 yap brj 
rovs viovs abLK€LV pe bLa<p0dpovra. eyw de ye, <o 
avbpes 1 AOrjva'LOL, abLKdv <prjpL MeA rjrov, otl airov- 
bf) yapLtvrlCzTaL* pabim ds ay&vas Ka0L<rras av- 

oriraXtjOfj Xiya>] Commonly aXrjOrj. The true reading is found 
in Coisl. Ven. A 2. Vind. 6. Par. BOH. Angel. Zitt. Florr. 
a. b. c. d. e. i. with Bas. 2. In Vat. Flor. d. is read 'on Kai aXijQrj X. 

XI. aim] i<TT<o iKavrj an.] Commonly iKavfj rj an., which is 
corrected from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. I. 4. 6. Flor. a. e. g. h. 
Par. BCDST. 

rbv ayaQov re] Ts is added from the best MSS. 

neipaaopat anoXoytZaQai ] Commonly ano\oyrj<ra<yQai. We 
have adopted the present from Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 6. Flor. g. h. 
Par. D S T. and the margin of Par. B C. Flor. a. c. 

Jyd* dk yg] Tf is added from the best MSS. 


18 


PLATO. 


Opanrovs, 7rept TTpaypLarcov TTposTroLovpcvos cnrovba- 
£etv kcu KrjheorOai, &v ovbkv tovtm jranrore ipikqcrev. 
a)? S£ tovto ovt(ds ex^t, ‘ncip&o’OfjLai kcu vpuv embeL^ai. 

XII. Kat /xot bcvpo, oo Me'A^re, et7re, a v AAAo 
TL TT€pl 77oAAotT TTOL€l, h 0770)5 0)5 /3e'Art0T0t OL V€( 0 - 
TcpoL ecrovrai ; v Eyo)ye. *\6i brj vvv dirk tovtols, 
tls avrovs fteArtovs ttolcl ; brjXov y&p, on olaQa, 
piXov ye ctol. c rov pkv yap btatyOdpovra efevpcov, 0)5 
(fyr/s, e/ue dsayas tovtolctI d Kat Karrjyopds’ tov Se brj 
fieXrtovs rroLodvra Wl dire Kal prjvvcrov avrols, tls 
€(TTLV. Opa 5, 60 MeA rjT€* OTL CTiycLs Kal OVK %X.€LS diTTCLV) 
Kat tol o$k alcryjpov croi boKei dvai Kal iKavov re- 
Kjxrjpiov ov brj eyo> Ae'yco, ort (tol ovbev jicjxkXrjKtv ; 
AAA’ chrk, a) ’yaOe, rts avrovs apdvov 5 7rotet; Ot 
vojaol. ’AAA* ov tovto epcorco, eo ySe'Artore, aAAa tls 
avOpamos, ostls TTp&rov Kal avro tovto olbe, tov 5 
vojjlovs. Ovtol, co 2o spares, ol biKaarat. IIg> 5 Ae- 
yet5, co MeA^re; oiSe roi>5 ve'oi >5 mttdevetv oXot re 
et<rt Kat /3eArtou5 iroLdv ; MaAtora. LTorepov arrav- 
res, rj ol pkv avT&Vj ol S’ ov; f, A7ravre5. Ev ye 
vrj rrjv ( 'Vlpav f Aeyet5, Kat ttoWtjv a^Oovtav ra>v a><£e- 
Xovvtov. g rt Sal S?;, oiSe ot aKpoaral ficXrtovs 7 rot- 

Kat vjuv £7rt^£t^at.] Commonly viroStl^at, probably against 
all MSS. 

XII. *A\\o ti 7 rtpi 7roX\ou 7 t.] Commonly Trcpi rrXeiarov, 
contrary to the authority of the best MSS., that is, Bodl. Vat. Ven. 
b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. Commonly before 
irtpl was inserted rj, which is omitted in the Florentine and 
others. 

ri Sal Mj] Commonly ri SI Srj; the former is found in Coisl. 
Vind. 3. Flor. e., and also from a correction in Bodl. Vat. See 
Porson. ad. Med. 1008. Hermann, ad Vig. p. 848. Further on 
Tt Sal ol j3., I have adopted from Flor. g. h. Vind. 3. 6. Coisl., and 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


19 


ovcnv, rj ov ; Kal ovtol. T( bal ol fiovXevTaC ; h K al 
oi /3ov\€vra( . ’AAA’ apa, do McA?]tc, j urj ol kv rfj 
€KK\rj(r(q, ol kKKXrjcnacrTai, biCKfidetpovai tovs V€cot€- 
povs ; 1 rj kclk€lvol /3cA tCovs ttolovctlv arTO.VTes ; KaKcI- 
voi, YlavTts apa, a>9 €olk€V, ’AOqvaioL KaXovs kcl- 
yaOovs ttolov(tl 7rA rjv kpov, iyco 8c povos bia^deCpoo. 
ovtco Acycts; Yl&vv acpobpa ravra A eyco. rioAA^ 
y kpov KaT€yv(OK.as bvsrvxCav. k kol pot aiTOKpivar rj 

Kal TT€pl HtTTTOVS OVTCO (TOL boK€L %X €LV > l** V fitXTL- 
OVS 7T0L0VVT€S aVTOVS 7 t 6,VT€S avOpcorroL €ivai, CIS 
8 c tls 6 bcacpdetpcov; 1 rj rovvavrCov tovtov irav cts 
piv TLS 6 /3 zXt(oVS oloS T COV TTOL€LV rj TTCIVV dXiyOL, 
ot Ittttlkol • oi 8 c ttoXXoI kavrrep £vvuxtl Kal ypcovTaL 
'lttttols, bLacpOzipovo-LV; oi>x ovtco s *X €L > & McAr/rc, 
Kal irepl tinrcov Kal tcov aXXcov arravTcov £cocov; Trav- 
toos br/ 7 tov, kav rc cru Kal V A vvtos ov (f)rjT€ m kav rc 
<f)fjT€‘ 7roXXrj yap av tls evbaLpov(a tirj rrepl tovs 

from a correction of the Vat. instead of the common reading rt St ol 
1 3. For Planudes on Bachmanni Anecdot. II. 81., is wrong in con¬ 
tending that ri Sal cannot be admitted except before a stop, since 
the verses of Aristoph. Av. 136. 1615. 1676. Ach. 764. Rann. 
1454., and elsewhere, prove the contrary ; see Elmsley ad. Acharn. 
v. 803. 

ol hcKXrjmaarai'] We have added the article from Bodl. Coisl. 
Ven. a. b. Vat. Parr. B CDST. Flor. a. b. c. d. e. g. h. Vind. 
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Zittav., and others. 

KareyvcoKag Commonly arvylav, which is cor¬ 

rected from Bas. 2. Bodl. Vat. Cois. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. 
b. c. d. g. h. Par. CDST, and others. 

tig 5k rig o 5ia(t>Q.'] 6 is omitted by Steph. with Par. E. A little 

afterwards, yt was inserted after 6 (StXriovg in the old editions, 
which is found in very few MSS. 

ov <pi]Tt ] Commonly /ir) Qrjrt, which is changed from Bodl. 
Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. a. d. g. h. Par. D S T. 


20 


PLATO. 


VeOVS, €L €ts peV pOVOS aVTOVS biacf)0€ip€i, n ol b 
&W 01 oxpeXovcrLV. aWa yap, o> MeA^re, lkclv&s eiri- 
bdKVVO-ai, OTL Ovb€TT(£>TTOT€ €(f)p6vTL(TaS T&V Ve(VV, Kdl 
tra^xSj a,7ro(f)aLV€i$ rrjv aavTov apeXeLav, oti ovbev 
(roi pepeXrjKe 7T€pl &v epe elsayeLS. 

XIII. v Ert de fjpuv ehre, to iTpos Alos MeXrjre, 

7TOT€pOV eCTLV OLK€LV apeLVOV eV TToXiTCUS \pr](TTOLS, 
77 irovijpoLS; a> Wav, aitoKpivai ,a ovbev y&p tol \a- 
Xeirov epcorSt. ovx ol pev movqpol kokov tl epya- 
Covrat tovs ael eyyvTdrco iavrSv ovras, b ol 8’ aya- 
0ol aya0ov tl ; Tl&vv ye. *E vnv ovv ostls fiov- 
Aerai vi to t&v £vv6vt(ov fiXaTtTe(T0aL paXXov rj co<£e- 
\€L(r0aL ; aTTOKpivai, S> * ya0d Kal yap 6 vopos Ke- 
Xevet a7TOKp(vecr0aL. c ea-0’ ostls fiovXerai (3XaTTTecr0ai; 
Ov brjra. <$>epe br/, Trorepov epe elsayeLS bevpo cos 
biacf)0eipovTa tovs veaiTepovs Kal irovr]poT^povs ttol- 
ovvra eKovTa t) aKOVTa ; 'E kovto eyooye. T C bijra, 
00 MeA^re ; toctovtov (rv epov crotpcoTepos ei ty)Xlkov- 
TOV OVTOS d T7]\.LKOsbe &V, 00ST€ CTV jU€ V eyVtoKdS, OTL ol 

XIII. w Trpog Aiog MjXjjrt] Ven. a. Vind. 5. 6., and others, 
7r pog A. MBut compare C. XIV. Sophist, p. 221. D. 

ot pev Trovrjpoi kcucov rt] ad is commonly inserted after 7 ro- 
vrjpol, which we have omitted with Bodl. Vind. b. Vat. Flor. d. g. h. 
Par. D S T. In others it is placed after tcaicov. 

Kal 7rovt]poTepov£ 7roiovvTa~\ Commonly Kal rovrovg ttov. it., 
against almost all the MSS. For the common reading v'tovg, we find 
vtwrkpovg in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Par. D S T. 

Ti dr}ra, w M.] Commonly ri Srj ttote, which is changed from 
Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Par. C D S T. Vind. 1. 6. Flor. d. g. h. and 
others. 

wgrt av piv tyvwKag~\ Commonly war tv p., which is cor- 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


21 


fJL€V KOKol KOKOV TL €pya(oVTOL ad TO VS pdXlCTTO 7 t\tj- 
ctlov eavTcov, oi be ayadol ayaOov' eyed be brj els 
tocovtov dpa0(as tjkco, 6 tosre Kal tovt dyvodo, otl 
eav Ttva poy0rjpov 7 tolijoco tcov £vvovtcov, KLvbvvev- 
(rco kokov tl Xafielv air ovtov, costc tovto to to- 

(TOVTOV KOKOV eKCOV TTOLCO, (OS <fiflS (TV TOVTO eydo OOL 

ov TT€L0opLOL, co McXtjtc, olpaL 6e ovbe aXXov av- 
0pcoTrcov ovbevo •' aXX! 7] ov bLO(fo0e(poo, 7 ], el bta- 
(f>0e(pco, clkcov, cosTe (tv ye kot ap(poTepa xf/evhei. 
el 6e clkcov bLa<p0e(pco, tcov tolovtcov koI clkovolcov 
apapTrjpaTcov ov bevpo vopos elsayetv eoHv, aXX' 
lb(a Xa/36vTa bibaoKeiv koI vov0eTelv bljXov yap, 
otl, eav pd0co, 'navcropaL 6 ye clkcov i:oLco. g ctu 6e 
£ vyyeve<r0ai pev \ ilol /cat 6i6a£cu e <pvyes koI ovk rj0e- 
Xrjcras, bevpo be elsayets, ol vopos ecrTLV elsayetv roi/s 
KoXacrecos beopevovs, dXX’ ov pa07j(recos. 

XIV. ’A XXa yap, co avbpes ’ MrjvaloL, tovto piev 
bijXov 7/677 ecTiVj 6 eybo eXeyov, otl Me/\7/rco tov- 
tcov ovt€ peyo ovTe opLKpbv a 7ra>7rore epeXrjoev. 
opcos be brj Xeye 7jp.lv, tt&s pe (fops bLa(jo0e(peLV, <0 

rected from Bodl. Yen. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 2. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Zitt. Par. D S T. 

ol Se ayctQoi aya9ov\ Commonly ayaOov tl : but tl is omitted 
in the best MSS. 

Xafieiv an’ avTov~\ Commonly vtt’ ovtov, which is corrected 
from Bodl. Ven. b. Parr. D S T. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Zitt. and others. 

tovto to tooovtov ] 7"o is added from Par. 1). and Flor. h. 

ovde ciXXov avOpd>Trov\ Commonly aWiov, which is changed 
from Bodl. Coisl. Vat. Ven. a. b. A. Vind. 1. 2. 4. 6. Zitt. and 
others. 

i) ei Sta$9eipw] ei commonly omitted, is now restored from 
Bodl. Florr. all the Vindd. and other MSS. 


22 


PLATO. 


MeXpre, tovs veoorepovs; p bpXov bp, on b Kara Tpv 
ypa(ppv, c pv eypa^co, Oeovs bibaaKovTa pp vopi^eiv 
ot)S p 7ToXlS VOpi£ei, €T€pa $€ baipOVia KCUVCL OV 
Tama Xeyeis d or 1 bibao-Koav bia<p0eCp(o ; II(£i>v ^ez> ovv 
a(f)6bpa rama Aeya>. Tfpos am(ov toivvv, £) MeAry- 


re, rovrcoi> tu>v OeS>v, &v vvv 6 Xoyos eorlv, G ehre 




en cra<p€(TT€pov Kal epol Kal tols avbpaai tovtoktC. 
eya> yap ov bvvapai paOelv, noTepov Xeyeis bibaaKeiv 


p,€ vopiCeiv elvai Tivas Oeovs, Kal ambs apa vopl- 
£co etmt Oeovs Kal ovk elpl to Trapairav aOeos ovbe 
Tamp abiKoi, ov pevroi ovsirep ye p ttoXis, aAA* 
CTtpOVS, ' Kal TOVT €(TTLV 6 pLOL eyKaXeiS, OTi €T€pOVS' 
p TTavTairacTL pe (pf/s ome amov vop((eiv Oeovs tovs 
re aXXovs f Tama bibaaKeiv. Tama Ae'yco, cos to 77a- 
pairav ov vopl^eis Oeovs. ’12 Oavpacne MeAr^re, tva 
tl Tama Ae'yets ; s ovbe pXiov ovbe aeXpvpv apa vopi- 
£oo Oeovs elvai, &sti ep ol aXXoi avOpamoi ; Ma At’, h 
to avbpes biKaa-Tai, hrel tov pev pXiov XiOov (frpalv 
elvai, ttjv be creXpvpv ypv. ’Ava£ayopov olei 1 KaTp- 
yopelv, <o <f)iXe MeA^re* Kal ovtoo KaTatypoveis T&vbe 
Kal olei amovs airelpovs ypapp&Tcvv elvai, cosre ovk 
elbevai, on ra ’A va£ayopov (3i(3Xia, tov KA alppevlov, 
yepei tovtcvv t&) v Xoycov. Kal bp Kal ol veoi ra£ra k 
7 Tap epov pavOavovcriv, h e£ecr tlv evi ore, el iravv 
ttoXXov, bpaypps eic Tps opyparpas 1 npiapevois 2a>- 
KpaTovs KaTayeXav, eav TTposiroipTai eavTov elvai, 
aXX(vs re Kal ovtws aToira ovTa. aAA’ to 7 rpos A 10 s, 
omoicri <roi boKG) ovbeva vopi^eiv Oeov elvai; Ov 
pevToi pa AC, ovb * ottcvstiovv. ’'Attkttos y el, co 
Me'ATyre, Kal Tama pevToi, o)s epol boKeis, cravTio. 


XIV. Kai ravra pkvroi ] The old editions, except Bas. 2., 
omit pivroi, which is correctly preserved by all the MSS. except 



APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


23 


fyol yap boKei omoai, co avbpes ’ A0r)vaioi, tt&vv 
eivai vfipi(TTr)s Kai a/coAaoToj, Kal aTtyy&s ttjv ypa- 
(f)7}V TavTrjV v(3pei Tail Kal aKoXaaia Kal veoTrjTi m yp6- 
\fsao-0ai. eoiKe yap oosirep aiviypa £yvTi0evTi bia- 
Treipa>p,ev(£>, n ’A pa yvaxreTai 'SaiKpaTrjs 6 aotfios brj kp.ov 
XapievTi(op.evov° Kai kvavTi kp.avT<Z A eyovTos, r) efa- 
TTaTr/a-oi avrov Kal tovs aWovs tovs aKovovras; ov- 
tos yap kp,ol (fraiveTai ra kvavTia A eyeiv amos eav- 
rw kv Tjj ypacfrrj, cbsTrep hv el e'nroi ’AbiKei 2co*pc£- 
rqs 0eovs ov vop-ifav, aAAa 0eovs vopiifav. Kai to i 
tovto kern irai&VTos. 

XV. Gvvemo-Kexlsao-Oe br/, co avbpes, fj p .01 (fraive- 
rat a Tama \eyeiv av be rjpuv airoKpivai, co MeA?;re. 
vpeis be, oirep tear apxbs vpias TrappTr]o-apir]v, b p,e- 
pvrja-de p .01 j arj 0opv{3eiv, kav kv rep el(o0on Tpoiup to vs 
A oyovs Troi&p.ai. 

y Ecrri^ osrts av0p(o7rcov, co MeA^re, av0panreia p,ev 
vofJii(ei TrpaypaT eivai, av0pa>irovs be ov vop.i£ei; 
cnroKpive(T0(o, co avbpes, Kai p,r} aAAa Kai aAAa 0o- 
pv/3e(TO). ecr0 ’ osns tWous piev ov vopii^ei, hnriKa 6e 
7 TpaypiaTa ; t) avAryras piev ov vopi^ei eivai, avXrjTiKa 
bk irpaypiaTa; ovk ecrriv, co aptare avbp&v' el fxrj 
erv (3ov\ei cnxoKpivacr0ai, kyeb crol Aeyco Kai tois aA- 


Ven. £?. The common reading was sjuol p'ev yap Sokei : but phv is 
omitted in Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T., 
and, indeed, most correctly. 

ZvvriOsvTi diaTreipiopev^)'] Commonly ZvvTiQevn Kai dia7r. 
<ai is correctly omitted in Bodl. Ven. A. a. b. Angel. Par. E S T. 
Vind. 1. 2. 5. 6. Flor. g. h. i. In others, r\ is inserted after 
ZwtiO. 

XV. avXrjrag p'ev ov vopi&i eivai ] eivai is added from Bodl. 
Coisl. Par. D. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6. Flor. d. e. h. 


24 


PLATO. 


Aou tovtolctl. aAAa to eirl tovt(o ye cnroKpivai. eaO’ 
ftsns baipovia juer vop((ei rrpaypar eXvai, baipovas 
be ov vopd^ei ; c Ovk eanv. *12? covrjaas, oti poyis 
aTreKpCvo) in to tovtoovi avayKa(opevos . d ovkovv baipovia 
per (pfjs pe kcu vopt£eiv kcu bibaaKeiv, eir ovv Kai- 
va eire 7raAatd‘ aAA’ ovv baipovid, ye vop££(o e Kara 
tov crov A oyov, kcu ravra kcu buopoaco ev rfj avn - j 
ypa<pr). f el be baipovia vopifa, Kai baCpovas brjirov 
ttoX-X-Yj avayKrj vop'i^eiv epe eanv. ovx ovtcos eyei ; eyei 
brp TiOrjpi yap ae opoXoyovvra, eireibrj ovk airoKpi- 
vei. roi>$ de baipovas ovyl ijtOi Oeovs ye rjyovpeOa 
rj 0ecov 7 T albas ; g (pfjs tj ov ; Ylaw ye. Ovkovv efaep 
baipovas rjyovpai, a>? c rv (pys, el pev OeoC rives ei- 
anv ot baipoves, tovt hv eXrj o ey(6 (prjpC ae alvCr- 
reaOai Kai yapievrX^eaOai, Oeovs ov\ rjyovpevov (pa- j 
vai epe Oeovs av rjyeiaOai naXiv, eiTeibrjTiep ye bai¬ 
povas rjyovpai • el b ’ av ot baXpoves Oecov rraibis 
eioi voOoi nves rj eK wpcpdbv rj eK tivcov aWoov, &v 
brj Kat Xeyovrai, h tis txv avOpanrcov Sedov pev iraibas 
rjyoiro eXvai, Oeovs be prj; opoicos yap hv arorrov 
eirj, cbsTrep av ei tls imroov pev rraibas rjyoXro [ 77 ] 
Kai ov(ov to vs rjpiovovs, ithiovs be Kai ovovs prj 


to kni tovt(£) ys] ye is restored from the best and most nu- i 
merous MSS. 

'Qg a!vijaag} toKvrjffag, Steph. Injudiciously. Afterwards, for 1 
the common reading fjioXig, we have restored poyig from Bodl. I 
Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Parr. D S T. 

Kai ditopoffto ] Commonly diopocio, erroneously. 

ei 8e daipovia ] Steph. ei 8e Kai d. 

Qeovg ye r)yovpe6a'] Old editions after riyovpeOa add eivat, | 
which is omitted in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1 . 4. 6. Flor. c. g. h. f 
Par. D S T. 

vyolro [ r /] Kai oviov ] I agree with Forster. I. H. Voss, and j 




APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


25 


ijyoLTO €ivai. aAA’, ce MeAr/re, ovk earLV forces ov 
ravra ovyl airoireLpdopevos rjpcov kypa\l/co rrjv ypa(f)T]V 
raurr/v, 7) enropoov 6 tl kyuaXoLs kpol aAr^es abC- 
KTjp.cv forces 6e erv nva ttelOols av Kal apLKpov vovv 
exovra avOpcair^v, cos ov rod avrov [avbpos] eerrt kcu 
baLpovLa Kal Oeia rjyeicrOcu, Kal av to d avrov pr\re ba(- 
povas prjre 0eovs prjre rj paras, ovbepCa prjx a vri kcrrLV. 1 

XVI. ’AAAa yap, ce avbpes* ’A OrjvaToi, cos pev 
kyar ovk abiKcb Kara rrjv MeA^roo ypa<pijv, ov 7 roA- 
A 77 S poL boK€L elvai arroXoyCas, aAA’ iKava Kal ravra • 
o de Kal kv rots epirpoa0ev eA eyov, on noXkrj po 1 
a7re)(0eta yeyove Kal rrpbs ttoWovs, ev tore ort 
dXrjQks kern. Kal rovr ecrrLV 6 kpe alprjo-€L, h kavrrep 
alprj, ov MeXrjros, ovbe v Awros, aAA’ rj rarv ttoWojv 
bi.a(3o\.rj re Kal (f)06vos. c a brj ttoXXovs Kal aAAous 
Kal ayadovs avbpas rjprjKev, olpaL bk Kal alprjo-eLV’ 
ovbev beLvov, prj kv kpol arr/. d 

*To-cos b ’ hv ovv €lttol tls, Etr ovk aloxvvei, e ce 
2c oKpares, tolovtov krurribevpa err Lrrjbev eras, k£ ov 
Kivbvveveis wvl ai:o6aveiv ; ’Eya> Se rovr ce av bUaiov 
A oyov avreiiroLpu, on Ou /caAces XeyeLS, ce av0parire, 
el OLeLbelv Kivbvvov V7ro\oyt£ecr0ai f rod £r}v rj re0vavai 
avbpa, orov tl Kal apLKpbv oefreXos k(rnv, e aAA’ ovk 
eKeivo povov crKOireiv, orav Trparrri tl, norepov bi- 

Schleierm. in thinking that fi ought to be left out. For it gives a 
wrong meaning, since it is plain that rjpiovovg are rraldag ''urreuv 
Kal ov(t)v, not "unrwv r\ Kal ovtov. 

fog ov rov avrov (avdpog) ] ov, which was generally wanting, 
is restored from Bodl. Ven. a. b. Vat. Coisl. the six Vindb., Flor. 
a. d. h. i. Par. C D E H T. Ang. and others. But we have put 
avkpog in brackets because it is wanting in most MSS. 

XVI. orav 7 rparry rt] Tt has been added from Paris S. 

D 


26 


PLATO. 


KCLia, rj ahcKa rrpdTTei, Kal avhpos ayaOov epya, rj 
kclkov. cpavXoi yap av r<S ye era Xoyo) elev tcov f)p.i- 
6eo)v octol ev TpoCa TeTeXevTrjKacnv, ot re aXXoi Kal 
6 rrjs 0ertdos vlos, h os tocovtov tov KLvhvvov Kate - 
c ppovrjae rrapa to alaypov tl vTtop.elvai, cosre hreihrf 
ehrev rj pLr/Trjp avT<p rrpodvpLOvpLevco f/ E KTopa airoKrei- 
vai, 6ebs ovaa, ovtooctC ttcos, vs eycopat, ’12 irai, el 
TLpiupri ere is ITarpoKAa) rw eralpto tov epovov Kal r E/c- 
Topa airoKTevels, avTos a-noOavel' avTLKa ydp rot, 
(f)Y]a(, p.eO' ''E/cropa 1 7ror/xos erotpo?* 6 de raor aKov- 
cras k tov p.ev OavaTov Kal tov Kivhvvov toXiycaprjo'e, 
7toXv he piaXXov helcras to £r}v KaKOS cov Kal tols <pl- 
Xols pLrj TipiOdpeiv, AvTLKa, (prja-l, Te&valrjv 1 hiK-qv em- 
6els t( 3 ahiKOvvn, tva per] evOahe pewo KarayeAaoros 
7 mpa vrjvoi Kopoovlcnv, ayOos apovprjs. pr) arnov 
otet m (fypovTLa-ai OavaTov Kal Kivhvvov ; ovtoo yap eyei, 
co avhpes * AOrjvaloi, Tjj aXrjOeia’ oxi av tls eavTOV 
Ta£p rj rjyr}aap,evos n fieXnov elvai rj inr apyovTos 
TayOrj, evravOa del, cos epot hoKel, pevovTa KLvhv- 
veveiv, pir]hev viToXoyiCopievov p.rjTe OavaTov pirjTe aXXo 
pujhev TTpo tov alaypov. 0 

XVII. ’Eyw ovv heiva av elrjv elpyaapievos , a co 
avhpes * AOrjvaloi, el, ore piev pe b ot apyovTes erar- 


alone, Forster conjectured o ti av irp., with the approbation of 
Wolf. ITpdrrfiJ', placed absolutely in this manner, was not in use. 

TtOvalrjv 8itcr]v E7r i 0.] Commonly rr\v dhcijv. The article is 
correctly omitted in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. and others of a higher 
character. 

ra£y fj vyrjadpevog] We have added fi from Bodl. Ven. b. 
Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. g. h. Par. S T. 

pr)Tt aXXo Commonly prjTe aXXo ti pt]Ssv : but Bodl. 

Coisl. Vat. Ven. A b. Par. D E S T. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. a.c.d. 
g. h* correctly omit rt. 



APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


27 


tov, otis vp.eis eZXeade apyeLV p.ov, Kal ev riori- 
ba(a Kal ev ’A/xt^tTroAet kcu eirl ArjXZoo , 0 rore piev 
OV ZK€lVOl ZTCLTTOV e/X eVOV COSTTep KCU a\XoS TLS KCU 
eKLvbvvevov airodave lv, tov 8 e 6 eov tclttovtos, cos 
eyw cbrj 6 r]v re kcu xnreXa^ov, cfeiXoaocpovvTd fte Sew; 
(r)v Kal Z&raCovTCL epcavTov /cat tovs aXXovs, evTav- 
6 a be cfeo^Tjdels rj d&varov rj aXXo otlovv Trpaypa 
kinoifu tt]v tcl£lv. becvov pievT av eZrj, /cat des d\rj- 
600 s tot av pie St/caicos els&yoi tls els bLKacrTijpiov, 
otl ov vop.t£(o 6 eovs eivai aireidoov tt) pLavTeCa d Kal 
bebLces davaTov Kal olopievos (rocfeos eZvaL, ovk cev. 
to ydp tol davaTov bebLevai, co avbpes, ovbev aXXo 
eo-TLV rj boKeZv <ro(f)bv eZvaL, per) ovTa • boKeiv yap et- 
bevaL e earlv a ovk oZbev. oZbe piev yap ovbels tov 
6 avaTov ovb ’ et rvyyavei rw dv6p<o7T<p ttclvtoov pce- 
yKTTov ov tcov ayadcov, bebtaaL 5’ Cos ev elboTes, otl 
piey lotov tcov kokcov eort. Kal tovto ttcos ovk apLa 6 ia f 
eo-Tlv avTrj rj eiroveibio-TOS, rj tov oZeadaL elbevat b 
ovk otdev; eyco be, (b avbpes, tovtg) Kal evTavda 
tacos biacpepae tcov 7toXXcov avdpdeircov, Kal el by rw 
aocfeboTepos tov (foairjv eZvai, tovtco av, e otl ovk elbces 
iKavoos rrepl tcov ev ''AtSou oiWoo Kal oZoptaL ovk elbe- 
vaL. to Se abiKeZv Kal arreiOeLv rep fieXrCovi, Kal 6 e a> 
Kal avdpcoTTCp, otl KaKov Kal alo-y^pov ecrTLV oZba . irpo 
OVV TCOV KaKCOV, dev oZba OTL KaKa eCTTLV, CL pLTj oZba 
el ayaOa ovTa Tvy\aveL, ovberroTe (feofir) 6 rjo-opLaL ovbe 

XVII. X'nroipi rr/v rat-iv.] So Vind. 1. 4. Flor. c. h. Ven. b. 
Par. D S. for the common reading Xdiroipi, Bodl. Xliroipi. 

xal airsiQeiv ] Commonly Kal to cnrtiOeiv, against the au¬ 
thority of the best and most numerous MSS. 

ovdsTroTe <po(3r}Qr]<Top,ai ] Commonly, ^o^rjcropai, which is 

changed from Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1.4.6. Flor. d. e. g. h. Par. DS. 


28 


PLATO. 


< p€v£opcu. h cosre ovb* ei /xe vpeXs acpCere, 1 

* Avvt(i) ama-Trja-avTes^ os €(pr) rj rr\v 0 Lpyj]v ov beXv e/xe 
detipo dseX0€LV, rj, erreibr) elsrj\0ov, ov\ olov re 
etmt ro /X 77 airoKreXvai pe, Aeycoy 7 rpos ^/xas, &>s, et 
biacpev^oCprjv, rjbr) hv vpcov ol vlds eTTLTrjbevovTes a 
SooKp&Tris bLba<rK€L TTavres TiavTCLTTCHTL bLa(f)0aprj(rov- 

TCLl, €L pLOL 77/30? TaVTCL €1770676 2o OKpCLT€S, VVV 

pev ’Avvtu) ov 7retcro/xe0a, aAA’ atyUpev ae, errl tov- 
t a) /xeVroi, €(f) tore prjKert, ez> ravrp rfj ^rijo-eL bia- 
TpifieLV prjbe (fnXoo-ocpdv . 1 eaz> Se aAa>? Irt rooro 
irpaTTUiv, airo0avd' et ow /ue, 07T€p drrov, eirl tov- 
TOIS CL(f)LOLT€, €LTTOip aV VpIV, OTL ’EyO) VpaS, £0 0 LV- 
bpes i A0rjvaLOi, acmaCopai pev kcll (f> iAco, m 7ret oropcu 
be paXXov t( 3 0e(S rj vpXv, Kal eorsTTep hv epirvea) 

’AvvT(p a7ri(TTr]<TavTeg ] Steph. aTreiOrjaavreg. Aid. Bas. 1. 
a7ri9rj(TavT6g. Bas. 2. with Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6. 
The Florentine and almost all the others, amaTrioavTtg. See 
note. 

ijStj av vpwv — dia<p9aprjcrovTai.'] Those who think that av 
cannot be constructed with the future indicative, retain the com¬ 
mon reading, dia<p9aprj(roivTo. But the indicative is preserved in 
Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Coisl. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6. all the Florentine, and 
also Bekker’s MSS., except Ven. J2J and Vind. Y 2. We have 
therefore preserved the reading which all the better MSS. supplied. 
Yet it must not be supposed that av can be joined in such sentences 
with the future. In Plato, indeed, as far as we are aware, only two 
more examples of this construction are to be found, Rep. X. p. 615. D. 
and Phaedo. p. 61. D j in one place av is joined with d7rcjgnovv, 
in the other with ovde. And it appears that av is not even in this 
place to be connected with dia<p9aprj(rovrai, since we may suppose 
that the writer, when he had intended to say, rjdrj av vp&v oi vltig 
tiriT^tvouv & 'EwKpd.Trjg didaaicei, nai navreg ‘navra-iraa 
dia<p9apf]<rovTai, having changed the construction of the sentence, 
used the participle. Of av, construed with the future, Hermann has 
treated, De Part, av Libr. I. c. 8, 



APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


29 


Kai olos re co, ov pi) Traixroopai (fnXocrotpcov Kal vpTv 
TiapaKeXevopevos re Kal evbeiKvvpevos 11 orm av ael ev- 
rvyryavoo vp G>v, Xeyoov otairep etooOa, otl, apurre 
avbp&v, *AOrjvaios &v, iroXems rijs peyCarrjs Kal ev- 
boKLpoordrrjs els erocpiav Kal Icryyv, 0 yjprfpdrtov pev ovk 
alcryyvei eiTLp.eXovp.evos, 07ro)s (tol ear at cos irXnara, Kal 
bo£r)s Kal npfjs, $povr\(7em Se Kal dXr]0eias Kal rrjs \|r v - 
XV?j O7roos a>s /3 eXrCcrrr] ecr rat, ovk empeXe'L ovbe (ppovrt- 
C^ls ; Kal eav ns vp&v ap(f)Ls(3r]rricrri Kal (f)fj empeXeT- 
<r6ai, ovk evdvs a(f>ria-(o avrov ovb ’ dneipi, aXX ’ 
eptfcropai avrov Kal e^eracrco Kal eAey£co, Kal eav poi 
prj boKrj KeKiijcrOai aperrjv, tyavai be, oveibitv, on 
t a nXetoTov a£i a ire pi lAa^torou 'noie'irai, ra §e 
tpavXorepa irepl nXeiovos. ravra Kal vecorepep Kal 
t: peerfivrepu>, ora) hv evrvyydvo), 77007 cra), p Kal £evcp 
Kal aaro), paXXov be rots aoroi?, q otr a> pov eyyvrepoo 
eo-re yevei. ravra yap KeXevec 6 Oeos, ev tore. Kal 


ov p'y Travffcopai 0.] Commonly tt avvopai, which is changed 
from Bodl. Vat. Ven. a. b. jS?. Vind. 1. 2. 5. Par. BC HT g. 
Plor. a. i. Angel. For Dawes’s canon respecting the propriety of 
always rejecting the 1st aorist in constructions of this kind, has long 
been exploded. A little further, impiXovptvog, Bodl. Ven. b. 
Flor. e. g. h. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Zitt. Par. S T g., which is not approved 
by Atticists. But see the observations of Buttm. Ausfuhrl. griech. 
Sprachlehre $. 114. under pk\oj ; compare Protag. p. 326. A. 
Phaedo p. 115. B„ and elsewhere. The common reading was i7ri- 
ptXopsvog. 

<><r<p pov iyyvrepot sore ylv«.] Commonly pot, which is 
changed from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1.6. Flor. d. h. Par. 
D S T. For the construction ought to be either pot lyy. 1. yt- 
vovq, or pov lyy. I. ykvst : the common reading is opposed to cus¬ 
tom. Hipp. maj. p. 304. D. pot Tvyxdvet iyyvraTa yivovgwv. 
Laches, p. 187. E. of otv Iyy vraru) Stoicpdrovg y Xoytp tog-rrsp yevtt. 

D 3 


30 


PLATO. 


eyco otoptat ovbiv ttco vpuv pL€i(ov ayaOov yeviaOai 
cv rfj iroXei 77 rr]V kpd]V rcn 0 e<o vTTrjpecrLavJ ovbtv 
yap aAAo irparruv eyco 7reptepxop.at 77 7ret0coi> vp.&v 
Kal vecorepovs Kal iipecrfivripovs ptr/re aa>p.ar(ov emp.e- 
XeicrOai p^re xprjparoov 7 rporepov pLTjb€ ovroo cr<p6bpa, s 
cos rrjs \jsvyfjs, O 7 rcos cos apCcrrrj eorat, Aeycor, ort 
ovk €k. xP r U JL ° LTOiV ap* T V ytyverai, aAA* e£ aptrrjs 
Xpripara Kal raAAa ay ad a rots avdpcoTrois airavra 1 
Kat Ibia Kal br\pocria. et pier ovv ravra Xeyoav 8ta<£#et- 
pco u tovs viovs, ravr av etr] fiXafiepa’ et 8e rts pie 
<pr](nv aAAa Ae'yetr 77 raora, order Ae'yet. Trpos ravra, 
(fyaCrjv av-, co avbpes 9 AOrjvaioi, 77 rrttOecrde ’An/rco, 
rj p.r\* Kal 77 a<j)C€r€, 77 pir) ac^tere, cos epior ook ar 
7rot?7croz>ros y aAAa, or 8’ et pieAAco ttoXXclkls re 0 ra- 
vai. z 

XVIII. M77 0 opr/ 3 etre, a co ardpes ’Adrjvaioi, aAA* 
epipietrare' piot oTs ebe^dr]V rpicor pir) 0 opr/ 3 etr Zrf) oh 
av Ae^co, aAA’ aKOve lv' Kal ydp, cos eyco otpiat, 
dvrio-zcrOe aKovovre s. pieAAco yap ovv arra rpur 
epetr Kal aAAa, ec/)’ ots tacos /3o?7creo-0e- aAAa 
pr]bapm 770 tetre rorro. Er yap tore, ear epie a7ro- 

pjjdc oorw cr^o^pa] Commonly prjrt %p. irportpov p)re aXXov 
rivbg ourw (TtpdSpa , which is changed from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. 
Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Parr. D S T. 

Kal raXXa ayaOa] So almost all the MSS., except Par. E., 
which has with Steph. Kal raXXa rayaOd. Instead of the common 
reading rj aperr) yiyv. I have written, omitting the article, dper?) 
y/y., as in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. 
D ST. 

t] d<pieTe, r) pi) aipiere] Commonly Kal ij a<pUrk pi, r\ p), ojg 
Ipov k. t. X. But pe is omitted in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 
6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. and the same repeat ctyt'crt. 




APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


31 


ktelv^te tolovtov ovra, olov eycb Xeyco, ovk ep,e plel(oo 
(3\a\j/eT€ rj vpas ai/Tovs. ep,e pcev yap ovbev hv fiXa- 
\J/€iev ovte MeXrjros ovte V A vvtos. ovbe yap &v bvvai- 
to' ov yap oioptaL depurov elvaL h apelvovi avbpl vtto 
yelpovos /3\aTTTE(r6aL . clttoktelvele \ulevt av lam, rj 
e^eXclctelev, t) aTLpacrELEV. aXXa ravra ovtos \ uev 
tacos olerai Kal aXXos tls ttov peydXa KaKd, eyw 6’ 
ovk otopaL, d,XXa ttoXv paXXov c ttolelv h ovtos vvvl 
ttoleI, avbpa abLKcos ETTLyeLpelv cnroKTLVvvvaL. vvv ovv, 
do avbpes * A6r]vaLoi, ttoXXov beco ey&) d imep epavrov 
aTToXoyeL(T0aL, cos tls hv oXolto, aXX* vnep vpcov, 
pr\ tl e£a\u6.pTr)T€ rrepl tt]v tov 0eov boaLV vptv epov 
KaTa\j/r)(f)io-dpL€Voi. e lav yap epe ai tokteCvtjte, ov pa- 
blocs aXXov tolovtov evprjaeTE, aTeyyoos, el Kal yeXoL- 

OTEpOV ELTTELV, TTpOSKELpEVOV TTJ TToXeL f VITO TOV 0EOV, 

oosTTEp hnroo peyaXco pev Kal yevvalipj V7TO peye0ov s 
8e V6O0E(TTEp6O Kal beopEVCp EyelpE(T0aL VTTO pVOOTTOS 
TLVOS’ olov bi] pLOL boKEL 6 0EOS EpE Tjj TToXeL TTpOS- 
TE0ELKEVaL TOLOVTOV TLVaf OS VpCLS EyelpOOV Kal 7TEL0COV 
Kal dvELbl^cov eva EKaaTov ovbev iravopaL tt)v rjpepav 

XVIII. ovS'ev av (3\a\peiev~\ So the best MSS. The common 
reading is ovdiv (3Xd\pei. 

ov y dp oto/tat] Commonly olpai, against the best MSS. 
ovtoq pev "ktcjq] Commonly pev was wanting, but it is uni¬ 
formly retained by the best MSS. 

prj n eZapdpTrjre] Commonly rt was wanting, but it has been 
restored from the best MSS., as Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 4. 

lav yap kpe a. 7 roKTelvriTE~\ So the better MSS. correctly read 
for pe. 

voQearepip] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1.4.6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Parr. D S T. Commonly vatOpoTspy, which arose from inter¬ 
pretation. The Grammarians at least consider vcoOrjg as more com¬ 
monly used by the Attic writers. 


32 


PLATO. 


6\qv Travraypv TtposKaOifav. tolovtos ovv aAAos 
ov pabCcos vpXv yevqcreTaL, <o avbpes, aAA’ eav epol 
7T€L0qCT0e, (f)€LCre(T0€ pOV. VpL€l$ b * tcr(OS T&X hv 
dyJlbpevoL, cos7 rep ol vvord(pvT€S eyeLpopevoL, Kpov- 
(TCLVT€S CLV pi€, TTeL0OpeVOL * Av\)T(p, pabC(*)S CLV dlTOKTel - 
vaire, h etra tov Xolttov (3lov Ka0evbovTes btareXoLT 
av, el pq nva &X\ov 6 0eos vpuv eTTLirepyjseLe Kqbo- 
pevos vpu>v. otl 6* eya) Tvyxdvco cov tolovtos, olos 
in to tov 0eov Trj 7roAei beb6a0aL, l ev0evbe hv /cara- 
voqaaLTe. ov yap av0pom(.v(p eoiK€ k to epe t5>v pev 
epavTov airavTtov qpeXqKevaL Kal avex^adaL t&v ol- 
KeCdiv apeXovpevcov ToaavTa qbq eTq, to be vpeTepov 
rrpaTTeiv ae l, ibCq eKaaT(o 7 jposLovTa, cosirep rrraTepa 
rj abe\(f)bv Trpeo-fivTepov, Tret0 ovto eTnpe\ei(T0ai apeTrjs. 
Kal el pevTOL tl ano tovtojv aireXavov Kal picr0bv 
Xapfiavav TavTa TrapeKeXevopqv, elyov av Tiva Xoyov' 
vvv be opare bq Kal avrol, otl ol KaTqyopoi raAAa 
7 TavTa avaLaxyvTm ovtco KarqyopovvTes tovto ye ovx 
oXol re eyevovTo aTravaLaxvvTqo-aL, 7 TapaoyopevoL pap - 
rvpa, &s eyco 7rore TLva q eir pa£apqv pL<r0ov q f\Tqaa. 
LKavov yap, olpaL , eya> irapexopaL tov papTvpa , l a>j 
dXqdq A eyco, rqv iTevlav. 

XIX. v Icra)s hv ovv botjeLev aroirov elvai, otl bq 

pybiioG av aTroKTtivatTe] Commonly dTroKTeivrjTe, which is 
corrected from Bodl. Ven. b., and others. 

tov Xonrov (3iov ] Commonly tov Xonrov \povov, which is 
changed from Bas. 2. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Par. D H ST., and others. Bodl. has xpovov interlined. 

tix° v viva Xoyov.] Commonly tix £V , which is changed 
from Bodl. Ven. b. Flor. g. h. Vind. 6. Par. D S T. 

dvaKTxvvTO)Q ourw] Commonly ovtiog dvai<r^ovra>£, which is 
changed from Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. g. h. Par. D S T. 
avaiaxvvTWG certainly is the emphatic word. 




APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


33 


eyw Ibia p.ev ravra £vp/3ovXevco Trepucov Kal ttoXv- 
irpayiAOVG), br]p,oaba be ov ToXpcoo dvafiaivcov eh to 
TrXrjOos to vp.eTepov £vpL/3ovXeveLv tt\ iroXeb. Tovtov 
8 e OLTLOV ZoTLV O VpLtLS ZpLOV 7ToXX6.KLS aK7]KOaTe 
TtoXXayov XeyovTos, otl p .01 Qeiov tl Kal baipioviov 
yiyveTai [<^> 00 ^ 77 ], 6 or) Kal ev rr/ ypacftfj eTUKoopapboov 
MeA rjTos eypa^raTo^ ep,ol be tovt €cttIv €k Tiaibos 
hp£ap.evov f (f)0)vrj tls yiyvopLevrj, rj OTav yevrjTai, ael 
airoTpeTrei p,e tovtov , 6 av pie AAoo upaTTeiv, irpoTpeireL 
be oviroTe. tovt ea-TLv o juot evavTiovTai ra ttoXltlkcl 
upaTTeiv. Kal irayKaXcos ye pioi boKei evavTiovadar 
ev yap taTe , 00 avbpes ’ A0rjvaiOL, el eyo) nraXac 
eTrexebprjcra 7rpaTTeiv ra 7 roAm/<a TrpaypiaTa, TiaXat 
av diToXcoXr] Kal ovt hv vpias oxpeXriKri ovbev ovt 
av ep.avTOV. b KaC p.OL \ ur) ayOecrQe XeyovTi TaXr]0r /• 
ov yap ecrTiv ostis dvdpcoTroov crooOtfcreTai oiWe vpuv 
ovt€ aXXco irXriOeL ovbevl yvr](rCu>s evavTbovpievos Kal 
bcaKooXvatv TroXXa abiKa Kal napavopa ev Trj 7 roAei 
ybyveaOai , aAA’ avayKaiov ecrrt tov rw ovtl payov- 


XIX. Kai 7ro\v7rpaypovti] So Bodl. Vind. 1.4. 6. Flor. g. h., 
and some others j the rest have 7ro\v7rpaypovu>v. 

ylyverai (<pojvr)) ] This <f>iovr], although retained by all MSS., 
is nevertheless so needless, that it has been deservedly considered as 
a gloss. 

-rrayKaXtog ye poi] de pot in the old editions, against almost all 
the MSS. 

airoXwXi )—Since this form of the Past Perfect, which 
is common in Plato, is here given by Bodl., and appears in a cor¬ 
rection of the last syllable in Ven. b., we have not hesitated to 
adopt it instead of the common airoXuXeiv and 0 )(f>eXrjKtiv. Com¬ 
pare c. VIII. at the beginning. 

tov Ttp ovti paxovpevov ] tov, commonly omitted, is inserted 
on the authority of the best MSS. 


34 


PLATO. 


p.evov vtt ep rov biKatov, Kal el p.eX.\ei 6X.tyov ypovov c 
<T(D0ri(r€(rOcu, IbuoTeveiv, aWa jirj brjpoo-ieveiv. 

XX. MeyaAa 5 ’ eycoye vp.lv TeKpjipta Trape£op.ai 
tovt(ov, ov Xoyov y, aAA’ o vp.els TipcaTe, epya. aKou- 
(rare 877 pcov ra epol ^vpfiefir/KOTa, tv elbrjre, on ovb 
av evl vTreLKaOotpu irapa to bUaiov belcras 06,varov, 
prj v7T€LK(tiV be apa Kal aTroXoipr\v. ep& be vplv 
(f)opTLKa pev Kal biKaviKa , a aXrj0ij be. ’Eyo> y&p, (*> 
&vbpes 'A0r)vaioL, aXXrjv pev apyrjv ovbeptav ttu>t rore 
r)pda h ev rfj TroXei, efiovXevcra be • Kal ervyev fjp&v ri 
< pv\r) ’A vnoyls 0 TrpvTavevovcra, ore vpels rovs beKa 
crTparriyovs rovs ovk aveXopevovs tovs e/c rrjs vavpa- 
yCas efiovXecr0e a0poov<i KpCveiv, A tt apavopm, cos ev 
T(S varepcd ypovep iraatv vp.lv ebo£e. e tot eyco povos 
t&v tt pvTaveoiv r)vavTi(a0r]v { vplv prjbev Troielv tt apa 
tovs vopovs, Kal evavTia e\{sr)(pL(rdpriV‘ Kal eToipoav 
ovtmv evbeiKvvvai pie Kal aTrayew tS>v pr)Top(ov, s Kal 

XX. aKovaare 5rj pov ra spot %vp/3t(3.~\ Commonly a/couerare 
St] poi ra £., which is changed from Bodl. Ven. b. Flor. h. Par. 
D S T. A little further on the old editions have victiKoipi , which 
is found only in Flor. e. Ven. {Ej. On the form adopted by us, see 
Moeris. under the word. Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 87. Hermann ad (Ed. 
Col. 1019. 

apa icai cnroXolp'ijv.'] Commonly apa Kal Up’ civ drroXoiprjv. 
The MSS. disagree much. The reading which we have adopted 
with Bekker is found in Vind. 2. 3. Flor. b. e. i. Coisl. Angel. 
Ven. AS. Par. E H. and pr. Ven. 6. Par. B. Fischer defends the 
common reading in vain. 

IfiovXtaQe] Commonly i^ovXtvaaaQt, which is corrected from 
Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. 

cat cnraytiv tu>v p.] Commonly virdyuv, which is corrected 
from Bodl. Vat. a. b. six Vindobb., all the Florentine, and most 
others. See note. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


l>pS>V KeXeVOVTMV Kdl fto(tiVT(OV, p€Td TOV VOjJLOV Kdl 
tov biKdLov (Sprjv pa.XXov pe beiv bidKivbvveveiv rj pe(¥ 
vpcov yeveaOdi prj bUdid (3ovXevopev(ov, (frofirjOevTd 
becrpov rj davarov. Kdl tclvtcl pev r\v ert brjpoKpdTov- 
IjLtvrjs Trjs TroXecos. ’Ettci brj be oXtyapyia eyevero, 
ol Tpi&Kovra av peTdrrepyjrdpevoi pie irepnrrov avrov h 
els tt]v OoXov 1 TTposeratjav ayayeiv eK ^dXdp'ivos 
AioVTd TOV IZdXdpiVlOV, IV dTToOdVOL * OLd brj Kdl 
&XXois eKeivoi ttoXXo'is ttoXXcl 7 xposeTdTTov, (3ovXopevoi 
<ws TrXeCaTOvs dVdvXrjadi dina>v. k Tore pevToi eyor 
ov Xoycp, a.XX ’ epyip dv evebei£a.prjv , on epol OdVdTov 
pev peXei , el prj ciypoiKorepov rjv elrreiv, ovb ’ onovv, 
tov be prjbev dbiKov pr]b ’ dvoaiov epya.£ecr6di, tovtov 
be to 7 tov peXei. 1 epe ya.p eKeivrj rj opyri ovk e£e- 
TrXrj^ev ovtots lo’yypci ovoro, cosre dbiKov tl epyoadcrOdi, 
aXA’ erreibrj e/c Trjs OoXov e^rjXOopev, 01 pev rerrapes 
(pyovTO els hdXap'ivd Kdl rjyoyov A eovTd, eya> be 
toyoprjv ottivv oiKdbe. m Kdl icrcos &v bid tovt 
direOdvov, el prj rj dpxv bid Tayeiov KOTeXvOrj. Kdl 
TovTOiv vpiv ecrovTdi ttoXXoI popTvpes. 

XXI. ’A p ovv a.v pe oleaOe Too-a.be eTrj bioyevea- 
$fai, el hTpdTTov tci br)po(Tid, Kdl TrpdTTOiv d£l(os civbpos 
dyoOov efiorjOovv tois biKdiois koi, dosirep yjprj, tovto 
irepl TiXeicrTov erroiovprjv ; a ttoXXov ye del, <0 avbpes 

"ETTsiSrj SI oXtyapx-] Heind., without necessity, conjectures Se 
ij oXiyapxla- 

Qa.vd.Tov pev /tEXti] So Bodl. Ven. b. and all the better MSS. 
for the common readiug pev 9. p. A little further, Bekker omits ijv 
with Par. E. 

XXI. \Ap’ ovv av pe oieaOe ] dv, commonly omitted, is restored 
from Bodl. Ven. % b. Coisl. Vat. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6. Flor, e. g. h. 
Par. D S T. 


36 


PLATO. 


*A OrjvcuoL’ ovbe yap av aAAos avOpconoiv ovbels. aAA* 
eycb bia navros rod (3lov biqpoala re el nov tl enpa^a, 
rotovros <pavovpai, h Kal Ibla 6 avros ovros ovbevl nr(o- 
7 Tore £vyyu> piper as ovbev irapa to biKacov ovre aAAa> ovre 
rovrcov ovbevl, ovs oi bia(3b\\ovres pe (fyacnv epovs 
paOrjras elvai. c eyo> 8£ bibaaKaXos pev ovbevos 
7T(oTTor eyevoppv el be ns epov A eyovros Kal ra 
epavrov npdrrovros emOvpe'i aKOveiv , d elre vevrepos 
elre npeer(3vrepos, ovbevl Treonore eepdovrjera. ovbe 
ypppara pev Xapflavcov* biaXeyopai, prj Xapfiavav 
8’ ov, aAA’ Spoils Kal nXovcrlu) Kal rrevryn napeyco 
epavrov epa>rav, f Kal eav ns ^ovXprai anoKpivopevos 
aKoveiv &v av Aeyco. Kal rovrcov eyco, elre ns xP r l (Tr ^ 
ylyverai elre pr\, ovk hv biKalcos rrjv air lav vrreyoipi, g 
&V pr/re VTTeayoppv p-pbevl pr/bev nconore pdOrjpa pr/re 
eblbatja . el be rls (prjen nap epov nconore n paOelv 
rj aKodcrai Ibla o n pp Kal oi aXXoi ndvres, ev lerre, 
bn ovk aXpdrj Xeyei. 

XXII. ’AAA a bia rl by nore per epov yalpovcrl 


oi)£ oi diafiaWovTeg] Commonly oi)£ Srj oi 5. But dr} is 
omitted in Bodl. Ven. b. Parr. D S T. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. 
In Ven. b. Flor. h. and others, ovg diafiaXKovreg. 

sTriOvpeZ aKoveiv.'] So Bodl. Coisl. Ven. a. b. Par. ABCDEST. 
six Vindobb. Flor. a. b. e. g. h. Zitt. Commonly i‘jriQvpo'i, which 
Bekker has retained. Socrates speaks as referring all those things to 
the present time ; whence he proceeds, further on, ovde A apfiavuv 
diaXiyopat. 

clkovhv S)V av X.] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. a. b. Vindd. Florr., and 
most others. Old editions, clkovu. 

ttu) 7rork rt paQsiv.~\ Commonly 7rw7ror« r) paOelv, which is 
corrected from Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. 
Par. D S T. 

XXII. ’A XXa Sta ri drj 7 rore] Commonly 81a was wanting, 

contrary to the best MSS. 




APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


37 


Tives ttoXvv \povov biaTpL(3ovT€$ ; ’A k7]k6clt€, co avbpes 
* AOrivaioi • 7 racrav vpiv tt]v aX-rjOetav iyci) eh tov, otl 
aKovovres yalpovaiv e^eTaCppevois rots olopevots pev 
eivai (toc^ols, oven 8 ’ ov- eerri yap ovk arjbes. epol 
be tovto, cos eyco cf)r)pi, TrposTeTaKTai a vtto tov deov 
TTpa,TT€LV Kal €K paVT€L(bv Kal e£ €VV7TVl(OV Kal 7 TaVTL 

rpoTTcp, (07 rep tls Trore Kat aXXri deia poipa av6p(oTUo 
Kal otlovv Trposera^e Trparreiv. T avra, co avbpes 
* AdrjvaLOL , Kal aXrjdrj eari Kal eveXeyKTa. b el yap 
brj eycoye tcov vecov tovs pev biaepOeipcoy tovs be 
bieepOapKOy XPV V brjirov, el re Tives uvtcov TTpeafivTepoi 
yevopevoi eyvcocrav , ort veois ovenv avTOis eya> kokov 
TT coiTOTe tl ^vve^ovXevaa, vvvl avrov s avaftalvovTas 
epov KaTrjyope'iV Kal TipcopeierO at* et 8e pr) avTol 
jjOeXov , c tcov OLKelcov TLvas tcov eKe lvcov, 7raTepas Kal 
abeXcpovs Kal aXXovs tovs TrposrjKOVTas, elirep in r 
epov tl kokov eireTTovOeo-av avrcov 01 otKetot, vvv 
pepvijo-OaL. ttc^vtcos 8£ irdpeienv avTcov ttoXXoI ev- 
Tav0OL, d oi)s eya> opto, 7Tp(OTOV pev KpLTcov ovtoo-l , e 
epos rjXLKLcoTrjs Kal bripoTT]s, KpiTo(3ovXov Tovbe 7rar?5/r 

teal tveXeyKTa.'] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. 
d. g. h. Parr. D S T. Old editions ebeZeXeyKTa. 

tyioye rut v viwv] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. 
d. g. h. Par. D S T. Commonly ky<o t&v vewrepuiv. Bekker 
also has retained veuTepejv. 

epov ti KaKov h r.] Commonly KaKov n, which is changed 
from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Coisl. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6. Flor. d. e. g. h. 
Par. D S T. A little further, old editions, 01 avT&v oiKtioi, which 
we have also changed from all the best MSS. 

vvv ptpvrjaQai.'] Commonly Kal TipcopeiffOai is added, which 
does not appear in Vind. 2. 3. Flor. a. b. c. e. i. Zitt. Par. BCE H. 
g. Coisl. Ang. Ven. A. 

noXXol kvTavOol ] Some MSS. incorrectly have IvravOa. 

E 


38 


PLATO. 


eireLra AvcravCas f 6 Alcryivov rovbe 'narrip' 

€tl * AvTLcfr&v 6 Kijcfoicnevs ovtoctl, ’Emyevovs Trarrjp. 
akkoi tolvvv ovtoi, s &v ol abekcfool kv tclvttj rfj 
hicLTpififi yeyovacn, Nt/coarparo9, h 6 GeosborCbov, 
abekcfoos Geoborov —/cat 6 pev Geoboros rerekevTrjKev, 
toyre ovk av eKewos ye avrov KaraberjOecr] —, /cat 
ITapaAos obe, 6 AypoboKov, ov TfV Ge6.yr\s abends' 
obe re ’A beipavros, 6 ’ ApLcrroovos, ov abekcfoos oyrooi 
nkaroov, Kal Alavroboopos, ov ’ Airokkoboopos obe 
abekcfoos. Kal akkovs Trokkovs kyoo eyco vpiv ehrecv, 
Sov nva kxprjv pbikurra pev kv tS eavrov Aoyo) 
TrapacrxkcrOai Mekrjrov paprvpa • et be Tore eTrekaOero, 
vvv 'napao'xko'Oco, eya> 7 Tapayoopoi), 1 Kal keyeroo, et rt 
eyei toiovtov. akka tovtov ttclv rovvavrCov €vprj(reT€, 
(o avbpes, Travras kpol fiorjdeiv eroCpovs r<3 biatyOei- 
povTL, k to) KaKa epya^opevoo rous OLKelovs avr&v, bos 
(foao-L M.ekr}Tos Kal V A vvtos. avrol pev yap ol 

Alax'ivov rovde 7 rar? 7 jo.] Commonly tovtov against Ven. b. 
Par. D S T. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6 . Florr. d. e. g. h. and Bodl. 

iti’A vritytov 6 K> 70 .] Commonly in S’ ’Avt., I wonder Bekker 
preserved this against the authority of Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 
1.4. 6 . Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S. 

NtKoorp. 6 Oeogdoridov] Steph. 6 Zcoridov, which is in Par. 
B C. marg. Bodl. Ven. b. Par. D ST. Ven. 1. 6 . Flor. g. h. 0«o- 
Ztortdov. 

ode re ’Adeipavrog] Commonly tie, which is changed from 
Bas. 2. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 4. Flor. a. Par. B C. 

Aiavrodojpog] Aid. Bas. 1. Steph. Aiavridcopog, against almost 
all MSS. A little further on, old editions, ov ’Att o\\6du>pog 6 
ade\<pog , which is rejected by all the good MSS. 

eyw vplv elireiv ] Commonly eyooye ex<v, against the au¬ 
thority of Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. 

\oy(p TrapcKTxioOai] So Bodl. Coisl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6 . 
Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. Commonly rapex^Oai. 





APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


39 


bie(f)OapiiivoL rax hv Xoyov eyoiev (3or]0ovvT€s ^l ot 
8e abia(f)0apTOL, irp^a^vrepoL ijbr] avbpes, ol tovtcov 
nTposriKOVT€s, m rCva aAA ov iyovcri Xoyov (3ot]0ovvt€S 
fyol aAA’ rj tov op0ov re /cat bUaiov , n ort ^vvicraaL 
MeA^ra) piev y\revbop.iv( o, ejuot 8e aXr]0€vovTL ; 

XXIII. Etei> 5 ?}, co avbpts’ a pikv eyco €yoip! hv 
dTTo\oy€L(T0aL, (r^ebov ecrrt rai/ra Kat aAAa £<rcos 
roiavra. Taya 8* at> rts vp,a>v dyavaKTrjcrtiev* ava- 
p.vr)cr0iis kavrov, et 6 /aez> eAdrrco rot/rovt roO ay&vos 
aycova dya)vi£6p.€VO$ h kb^rjdri re Kat tKerevcre rovs 
8tKa<rras /aera ttoXX&v baKpvoov , Tratdta re avrov 
dvafiifiacrapitvos, Lva 6 n /xdAtora SXer]0eir], Kal 
aXXovs t&v oLK.e((ov Kal (f)C\oov ttoXXovs, eyco 8e ovbev 
apa Tovroiv irou/jo-ai, 0 Kal ravra Kivbvvevoov, cos ai> 
8o'fatjut, roz; ea^Tor Kivbvvov. ra\ hv ovv rts rawa 
erro^cras av0ab£arepov hv rrpos jue ayoiri, d Kal dpyLcr- 
0el$ avTols tovtois 0etro av pier dpyrjs rrjv \frfj(f)ov. 
et 8?} rts vpi&v ovroos £X* l > — ovk aftco pikv yap eycoye* 

bn £i iv'ioaoi] So with Bas. 2. is read in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. 
Vind. b. Flor. g. h. Par. S T. and marg. Flor. a. c. Commonly 
ov £. which Bekker retained. 

ipol Si aXrjQevovn] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor. g. h. Par. D S T. Old editions, epoi Si aXrjOi] Xeyovn, 
which is a gloss. 

XXIII. crxeSov lore ravra ] Commonly ax t ^ v Tl £<TTl > against 
the best MSS. 

iSeriQr] re Kal Ik erevae'] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Par. 
B C D H S T. Ang. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. g. h. with Bas. 2. Com¬ 
monly SeSirjrai re k . Ik., which is in vain defended by Schrefer, 
Demosth. Appar. T. II. p. 652. 

iraiSia re avrov ] Steph. wrote avrov , which is unnecessary in 
this narration. 

Kal (j>iXo)v ttoXXovq] Commonly Kal iplXovg rroXXovg, against 
the best MSS. 


40 


PLATO. 


€i 5’ OVV, €7TL€IK7] OV fJLOL boKQ) 7TpOS TOVTOV XeyeiV 

Xoyov, on ’ Epoi, a > apicrre, elcrl fxev nob rives Kai 
oiKeioi .' Kai yap rovro avro to rod 'Opr/pov* ovb 
iya) ano bpvos ovb ’ cnro nerpys ne(f>VKa, aAA’ ef 
av0pa>TT(ov , cosre Kai oiKeioi poi elcri Kai vieis ye, a) 
avbpes ’ AOyvaioi, rpeis, eh pev peip6,Kiov ybrj, bvo be 
naibia. aX A.’ opa>s ovbev avr&v bevpo avaftiftacra- 
pevos beyo-opai vp&v anoy^rj^caacOai. Tt brj ovv 
ovbev robrcov ironr/cra); Ovk avOabi^opevos, (b avbpes 
’ AOrjvaioi, ovb ’ vpas anphCjAV’ dAA’ el pev OappaXeats 
eybi eyo) npos Oavarov rj pr\, aXXos Xoyos, 7 Tpos 
b ’ ovv bo£av Kai epol Kai vpuv Kai oXy rfj noXei ov 
poi boKei KaXov eTvai epe rovraiv ovbev noieiv Kai 
rrjXiKovbe ovra Kai rovro rovvopa eyovra / eir ovv 
aXrjOes elr ovv yf/edbos’ aXX’ ovv beboypevov ye 
ecrn rov 2 coKparr] biaipepeiv nvl r&v ttoXX&v av6p(b- 
ttu)V. s el ovv vp&v oi boKovvres bia(f>epeiv eire aoipiq 
elre avbpeia elre aXXrj fjnviovv apery roiovroi ecrovrai, 
alayjpbv av ehj' olovsnep eyco noXXaKis eiapaKa nvas, 
orav Kpiviovrai, boKOVvras pev n eTvai , h Oavpaaia be 

7 r pog tovtov Xeysiv Xoyov, otl —] Commonly Trpog tovtov 
XsysLV, Xeyuiv, otl k. t. X. The present reading is supplied by Ven. b. 
from a correction Vind. 4. Flor. a. h. Par. D S T. 

Kai vielg yc] Tc is omitted in Bodl. Ven.b. Par. D ST. Vind. 
1. 4. 6. Flor. d. e. g. h. h. Zitt. 

Ovk avQadi^opEvog] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor. a. c. d. g. h. Par. BCDT. Commonly avOabia^opevog- 
See Phrynich. ed. Lob. p. 66. Thom. M. p. 84 sq. 

Kai <5Xy Ty 7rdXfi] Commonly Kai oXu>g ry noXei, which is cor¬ 
rected from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6., and most others. 

tire avdpeiq.] Bodl., Florr. seven, Ven. A J2? II a. Zitt. Parr. 
B C D H S. Ang. avdpig,, but avbpeiq, is the better reading. See 
Matthiae ad Eurip. Here. fur. v. 469. The metre requires the form 
avdptla in Aristoph. Nubb. v. 510. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


41 


*pya(pfj.€vovs, a>? beivov n olopevovs TcelaecrOaL, el 
airoOavovvTai, a>siT€p aOavarcov ecropevatv, eav vpeis 
avrovs prj a'TTOKreLvrjre' ot epol boKovaiv alayyvrjv rfj 
TToXeL TT€piaTTT€LV, COST aV TLVCL KCLl T&V £eVO)V VTToXa- 

fieiv, otl ol biacfrepovres 'AOrjvaLbiv els aperr/v, ovs 
avrol eavr&v ev re rat? apycus Kal rats aXXacs npais 
TrpoKpLvovcriv, ovtol yvvaiK&v ovbev btafpepovcn. 1 ravra 
yt-p, (o avbpes ’ Adrjvcuoi , ovre rjpas XPV / noi€LV k rovs 
boKovvras kcu otlovv elvat, ovr, hv rjpe t? TToi&pev, 
vpas €7TLTp€7T€iv, aAAa tovto avrb evbeUvvcrOai, otl 
ttoXv paXXov Kara\lsr](f)L€Lcr0€ rod ra eXeeiva ravra 
bpapara elsayovros 1 Kal KarayeXaarov rrjv ttoXlv 
ttolovvtos rj rov rjavylav ayovros. 

XXIV. Xcopt? rijs bo^rjs, 9, co avbpes, ovbk bUaiov 
poi boKet eXvai betcrOaL rod biKacrrob ovb% beopevov 
aiTocpevyeLV, aAAa bibao-Keiv Kal neCOeiv. ov yap eirl 
rovr<p Kaflrjrai 6 biKacrrys, eiii r c3 KarayapCCecrOaL ra 
biKaia, h aAA’ eirl r<p Kpivetv ravra • Kal opcopoKev 0 ov 
yapieivOaL ols &v boKrj avrcd, aAAa biK&oreLV Kara rovs 

ovre rjpaQ XP^] So l^ or * d. Ven. A & and Coisl. from a 
correction, as Forster had conjectured. Commonly vpag. 

Kal otiovv tivai\ So Vind. 6. Flor. e. The common reading 
was »cat oirr}Tiovv. Heindorf conjectured icai biryovv re. Bekker, 
without the authority of MSS., gave Kal bnyTiovv n elvai. See 
note. 

avro kvdeUvvaQai] Commonly ivbuKvvaQe, which is in Par. 
E. and a very few others. 

ra IXtsiva r. fy>.] Astius here, as well as in all other passages, 
writes kXeiva, against the MSS. We do not even assent to Porson, 
Praefat. ad Hecub. p. VII. sq., that this form should be restored in 
Attic writers. Compare Lobeck. ad Phrynicb. p. 87. As. from Sew, 
deidut, is formed Stivog, so from IXekio is derived IXstivog, which 
the Poets have converted into the trisyllable iXtivog. 

E 3 


42 


PLATO. 


vopovs. ovkovv ypy °v T€ ypds eOC^eiv vpas imopKeiVy 
ovO’ vpas eOC^ecrdat' ovberepoL yap hv yp&v evarefioiev. 
py ovv d£t,ovTz d pe, co avbpes ’AOyvaioi, roiavra 
beiv 7 Tpos vpas iTparreLV, h pyre yyovpat. KaXa elvai 
pyre biKaia pyre ocrLa, aXXcos re ndvrcos vy ACa, 
pakLcrra pevroi Kal e aaefieCas cpevyovra vi to M eXr\rov 
TovTovi. aacp&s yap &v, el neC6otpi vpas Kal ra> 
beCo-Qai (3LaCoCpyv f dpapoKoras, deovs av bubda-Kocpt 
py yyelcrQai vpas elvai, mat arexv&s dnoXoyovpevos 
KaryyopoCyv av epavrov, cos Oeovs ov vop(£co. aAAa 
noXXov bel ovrcos eyeiv vopCfa re yap , co avbpes 
’ AOyvaloLj cos ovbels t&v epcov Karyyopcov, Kal vpiv 
€TTLTpeTTCO Kal T<ri 0€(p KpiVai TT€pl kpOV OTTrj peXXei 
ipoC re apiara elvai Kal vpiv. 


XXV. To pev pr) ayavaKreiv , a co avbpes ’AO-pvaCoi, 
em tovtco rco yeyovon , ore pov KaTexj/ycfyCaao-Oe, aAAa 
re poL noXXa £ vpfiaXXerai, Kal ovk aveXmarov poi 
yeyove h to yeyovos tovto, aAAa tto\v paXXov Oavpafa 
eKarepcov rcov \f/i](f)(jov rov yeyovora apiQpov. ov yap 
upyv eycoye ovtoo nap’ oXlyov eo-ea^at, aAAa napa 

XXIV. ovkovv XPV] Commonly ovkovv, which is corrected 
from Par. D T. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 

paXiara pevroi Kal a<r. 0.] Commonly oaia, paXiara 7 rdvTcjg, 
vr) Ala pivroi Kai ao. <j>svy. The MSS. disagree. 1 have given 
what Bekker has collected from them. 

Gaty&Q yap av] av is added from Bas. 2. Bodl. Vat. Ven. a. b. 
Vind. 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. FI. a. b. g. h. i. and others. 

XXV. To plv pr} ayavaKTtlv] So with Bas. 2. Bodl. Coisl. 
Ven. A b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. a. b. c. d. e. h. Zitt. Ang. 
Par. B C D E H. The common reading was To pev ovv prj ay. 



APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


43 


7roA.Tr vvv be, ws Zolkzv, el rpeis povai pLereTTeaov c 
r&v \jrtj(f)oov, anoTie^evyr] av. Me'A r\TOV pev oiw, 
eptol boKu>, Kal w airoire^evya, Kal ov povov airoTre- 
(pevya aAAa 7rarrt brjXov tovto ye, on, et pip aveftrj 
V Aroros Kat AvK(ov d KaT^yopriaovres epio£, Kar co<£Ae 
XtAtas bpayjjLas, ov neraXafioiv ro iren^Tov ^pos tw 
yj/rjcpcov.* 

XXVI. Ttjuarat 6’ oor pioi 6 ai>pp Oavarov* Etev. 
ey&) Se 8p rtro? vpur a^rmpipcropiai, co avbpes ’ AOiqvai- 
ot ; r / or]Aov f otl ttjs a^tas ; tl ovv ; rt a£tos eipu 
iraOeLV rj aTioricraif 6 tl p,a6o)v er r<3 /3t&) r]avyj.av 
r\yov 7 aAA’ apLeXrjcras fovitep ot 7roAAot, d ypiq^arLcrnov 
re Kat OLKOVopiLas Kat crrparpyicor Kal brjpirjyopLoov Kal 
t&v aXXoov apy&v Kal £vvoop.ocriG>v Kal aracrecor r<3z> er 
rp 7roAet yLyvopievoov, rjyrfo-apLevos epavTov rw orrt 
€TTL€LK€aT€pov etvaL rj tosre eis TavT iovra o-(6(€or6aL, 
evravOa pev ovk fja , e ot eA0a)r ptpre vpuv pipre eptaorw 
e/xeAAor p.r]bev o<£eAos etrat, e7rt 6e to t6ta eKaaTov 
lav evepyeTeXv ttjv neyCaTrjv evepyeaCav, ws eyco (prjpu, 

ei rptig povai] Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 6. Flor.a, c. g. 
h. i. Par. B C D S with ed. Bas. 2. ft rpiaKovra povai. 

a7ro7rt<pf.vyr] av.] Commonly cnre7rt<psvyeiv av. The Attic 
form is preserved in Bodl., in which the common termination is inter¬ 
lined. Instances are not rare in Plato of the omission of the augment 
of the pluperfect. Compare Rep. II. 374. B. Gorg. p. 515. E. 
Symp. p. 215. E. Matth. §. 165. Fischer, ad Weller. II. p. 317. 
Hemsterh. ad Lucian. T. I. p. 308. Further on, the common 
reading was aXXa teat iravri 5. The best MSS. correctly reject 
jc at. How aXXa is put after ov povov without /cat is shown by 
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 837. 

XXVI. t] tfjjjXo*'] Commonly rj drjXov, against the MSS. 

evravOa pev ovk ya] Commonly ijia . Bodl. Ven. b. i)ia. 
Vat. f/a. Compare Buttmann. Ausfuhrl.griech. Spraclilehre T. I. p. 
554 et 558. ed. 1. 


44 


PLATO. 


evrav0a pa/ einyeip&v ckclcttov vpcav ireC0eLV pr) Trpo- 
Tepov ppTe tcov eavTov ppbevos eT:LpeXeL(T0aL, irplv 
kavTov e7TLpeXp0e(p, ottcjos cos yQe'ArKrros Kal cfopovLpco- 
raros eaoLTO, ppTe tcov tt}s noXecos, irplv avrijs Trjs 
TroXeoos' rS>v re aXXoov ovtoo Kara rov avrbv rp6'nov % 
eT7LpeXeLcr0aL. tC ovv elpL cl£los TtaQdv tolovtos cov ; 
ayaOov tl, to avbpes ’ A0pvaLOL, el bel ye Kara rrjv a£lav 
Tp a\r]6eiq TLpacr0aL' Kal ravrd ye ayaOov tolovtov, 
o tl av TTpeiroL epoC. tl ovv irpeireL avbpl 7revrjTL 
evepylrp , h beopevcp ayeLV oyoXpv eid Tp vpeTepa 
TTapaKeXevareL; ovk ecrd ’ 6 tl paXXov, 00 avbpes 
9 AOrjvaLOL, TtpeTieL ovtoos, cos 1 tov tolovtov avbpa ev 
TTpvTavelco o-treior0at, k 7roXv ye paXXov p et ns vpcov 
tTnrco rj gwooptbL rj feuyet vevUpKev * OXvpmdaLV . 6 

pev yap vpas Troiet evbatpovas boK€LV etvaL, eya> Se 
efoaL- Kal 6 pev Tpocforjs ovbev Seirai, eyw 8e beopaL. 
el ovv bee pe Kara to blnaLov ttjs a£Cas TLpacr0aL, 
tovtov TLp&paL, ev irpvTaveCco aLTpcrecos. 

XXVII. v I(ra )9 ovv vpLV Kal Tavn A eyoov 'napa'nXpcrL- 
cos boKco Xeyeiv atsrrep rrepl tov oXktov Kal Trjs clvtl- 
PoXT/aem* ar:av0abL(6pevos' to §e ovk eanv, do avbpes 
A0r)vatoL f tolovtov, aXXa TOLovbe paXXov . TieTteLo-paL 
eyq eKcbv eiWt b prjbeva abLKelv av0p(O7roov, aXXa vpas 
tovto ov 7 rei0ar oXlyov yap ypovov aXXrjXoLs bLeLXey- 

d tid ye 1 card r. d.] So Coisl. Vind. 3. Flor. b. Commonly d 
dr] ye. In many MSS. is found et tie ye. Further on, for Tipacrdai, 
which is also restored from Coisl. the old editions give npaaOe. 

Tip&pai, ev rrpvT. <riTT](7i(og.] Commonly Tipiopai, rrjg ev it p. 
mrrjaeiog. The article is omitted in Bodl. Vat. Coisl. Ven. A a. b. 
Ang. Par. CE H. Vind. 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. Flor. a. b. c. d. g. 'h. Zitt. 
Further on, the old editions again have CLTraveatiia^opevog, which 
is changed from many MSS. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


45 


/xe 0 a ,c ezret, ojs eyco/xat, et rjv vpZv vopos, oosirep Kal 
aAAots avOptoiroLS, irepl Oavarov prj pitav rjpepav povov 
Kp(v€LV, aAAa TToWas, eTrtio-OrjTe azr vvv 8’ ov pad iov 
h xpovui oAtya) /xeyaAas 8 ta/ 3 oAas cnrokueo-Oai. 7re- 
7T eiapivos brj eya> prjbiva abiKtiv ttoWov been epavrov 
ye dbiKrjcreiv Kal Kar kpavTov epetv avTos, a>s a£tos 
et/xt rov kokov d ical Tiptfo-ecrflai tolovtov twos ipavrS. 
tl betcras; rj prj 7ra0a) e tovto, ov Metro's poi rt/xarat, 
o (f>ripu ovk eibivaL ovr et ayaOov ovt et kokov ecrrtz >; 
clvtI tovtov brj eAco/xat &v ev ot8’ ort Ka k&v ovtwv , f 
rovrov Tiptjcrdpevos; Ttorepov beapov; Kal tl /xe 8et 
ez; Secr/xam/pta), 8ovAevoz>ra rr) act Kadiorapivrj 
apxfi> T °fr %vbeKa; s aAAa xprjpaTCdv, Kal bebiaOaL 
ecos av e/crtcrco ; h aAAa ravrov poi Zcttlv, ott ep vw 877 
eAeyozr ov yap eart /xot yprjpaTa, oirodev €ktlct(o. 
’AAAa 877 <f)vyrjs Tiprjcropai; tacos yap av /xot tovtov 
rt/xT/cratre. ttoXXtj pivT az> /xe <£tAo^xia ex<H, ^ 
avbpes ’ AOrjvaioi, et ovtcds aXoyicrTos et/xt, 1 cos re 7x77 
bvvaaOai Aoyt£etr 0 at, ort v/xets /xev ovres 7roAtrat 


XX VII. w< 77 T£p /cai aAAots] Commonly or 77 T£p, against all the 
MSS. 

pt'av 17 pkpav povov ] Commonly piav povov vpep., which is 
Changed from Bodl. Vat. a. b. Vindobb., the Florentine, and most 
others. Bekker from Par. D S. has given piav ypipav povrjv. 
TTtTrs.L(jpivoQ Si) tyo)] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 6 . Flor. 

d. g. h. Par. D S. Commonly TrtTrti<rptvog S’ kyio. 
al£i6g tipi rov fcafeoo] The MSS. rov k. See note. 
ridtiirag; riP'h 7T '\ The MSS. ri dtiaag, r) pr) irdBo). See note. 
iXwpai Cjv tv old’ ort] Commonly tXwpai n a>v k. t. A. But 

ti is omitted in Bodl. Vat. Ven. a.b., six Vindobb., Flor. a. b. c. d. 

e. g. i. Par. B C D H S. Ang. Zitt., and, indeed, appears to have 
been inserted by grammarians. 

o7Ttp vvv drj tXtyov'] Commonly drj vvv, against the MSS. 
Further on, Bodl. 0 . riprj<T<t)pai. 


46 


PLATO. 


flOV OV\ OtOt T€ iy€V€OT0€ ZveyK€lV TClS €/t MS bldTpl* 
/3ay Kal tovs Xoyovs , aAA* vp.iv fiapvTepcu yeyovacri 
KCU € 7 TL(pd 0 V( 6 T€pai, (OST€ £f]T€LT€ CIVT&V Wvl <X7TaA- 
Xayijvar aXXoi 8e apa k avras oicrovori pabCivs. ttoXXov 
ye 8et, co avbpes *Adrjvcuot . KaXos ovv av poi 6 fiios 
eir] Z£eXdovTi T 7 ]XiK(pbe avdpanrcp aXXr)V e£ aXXrjs 
TtoXiv 7roXecos apeifiopevu Kal e£eA avvopevio Crjv . 1 eS 
yap oT8* on, ottol av eA0co, Ae'yo^ro? e/xoo aKpoaaov - 
rat ot vioi &si rep ZvOabe. k&v pev tovtovs cnre- 
Aawco, m oorot e/xe a8ro2 e£eA<3crt, TreidovTes tovs 
7rp€(Tf3vTZpovs‘ Zav 8e /x?) aireXavva>, ot tovtcvv iraripes 
re Kat ot/cetot 8t* avrovs tovtovs. 

XXVIII. v Io-£t>? ow ai> rts eiiroi, 2ty<3r 8e Kat 
T)(TvyJiav aycvv, to ^coKpares, o^x otos r ecret fjpiv 
Z£eX0(bv (jjv ; Tourl 877 ecru ttcivtoov yaXeTTioTdTOV 
'ireicrai Tivas vp&v. Zav re yap Aeyoo, ort rco 0e<3 
cnreiOeiv tovt ZcttI Kal 8 ta roor abvvdTov i]ov\Cav 
ayeiv, ov irei'.aecrOe poi &>s elpcovevopevip' Zav r ao 
Ae'yoo, ort Kat Tvyyave t peyicrTov ayadov ov 3 avOpcoirfo 
tovto, eKao-Trjs rjpepas Trepl ape-rijs rooj Xoyovs 7rot- 
eio-Oai Kat r<Si> aXXoov, Trepl <5v v/xets e/xoO aKoveTe 
biaXeyopievov Kal ZpavTov Kal aXXovs Z^eTa^ovTos, 6 
8e ave^eTaaTos fitos ov /3ta>ros avOpcaiTip? raora 8* 

o;roi av £\0a>] Commonly 07 D 7 , against the best MSS. 

XXVIII. Siywv ££] Commonly rc, which is corrected from Bodl. 
Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 6 . Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S. 

iav t av Asyw] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1.6. Flor.d.g. h. 
Par. D S T. The common reading was iav r* avQig. Many MSS. 
with Bas. 2. have iav ravra \. 

piyiarov ayadov bv\ *Ov has been latety added from Bodl. Vat. 
Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6 . Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. 

i/iov a/covcrt.] Commonly rjKovfTs, which is changed from Bodl,, 
and most others. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


47 


en rjrrov Tieiaea-Oe jxoi Xeyovn. ra 8£ e\.ei l^ v 
ovT(os, ws eyco (fyripu, to avbpes, TreiOeiv 8e ov pabiov. 
Kat iyo) apt ovk eWio-piai eptavrov a£iovv kclkov 
ovbevos. el piev yap qv p .01 XPW ClTa > erLparjo-apuiv hv 
Xpr\pL6.Ttov ova epieXXov £ktC aeiv' ovbev yap av e/3Aa- 
firjv vvv be — ov yap ecrriv, 0 el /ur) apa oaov hv eyb) 
bvvaCpLrjv eKTlaai, roaovrov (3ovXeaOe p .01 TipLrj(rai. 
tcrcoj 8’ bvvaipLrjv eKrlcrai vpuv pa’av apyvpCov 
ToaovTov ovv Tip.&p.ai. TIXcltcvv be obe, to avbpes 
* Adrjvaioi, Kal Kplroov Kal KpiToj3ovXos Kal ’A770A- 
Xoboopos KeXevova-L pie rpiaKovra piv&v ripa/jo-ao-dai, 
avrol 8’ eyyvacr0ar d TipL&piaL ovv toctovtov eyyvrjTal 
8’ vpuv eaovrai rod apyvpiov ovtol a^Loypecp. 


XXIX. Ov 7roXXov y eveKa ypovov * to avbpes 
’ AOrjvaLOt., ovopa e£ere Kal alriav inro tG>v fiovXopevoov 
ttjv ttoXlv Xoibopelv , <09 ^ooKparr] aireKTovare, avbpa 
aro(f)6v’ (pr/crovcrL yap brj pie aoc^bv eXvat, el Kal per] elpi, 
ol (3ovXopevoi vpuv dveibi^eLV. el ovv Trepiepeivare 
oXCyov yjpovov , airo tov avrop&Tov hv vpuv tovto 

ov p<f.tiiov~\ Commonly pq,ha, which is changed from Bodl. Vat. 
Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. g. h. Par. DST. 

XXIX. cnreKTovare'] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor. a. c. d. g.h. Par. D. The common reading was cnreKTOvvi- 
Kare, on which form, see Bast. Epist. Crit. p. 242. ed. Lips. 

ei ovv 7repiepi.] Commonly yovv, which is corrected from Bodl. 
Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. DST. Bekker re¬ 
tained the common reading. 

vpuv tovto ’eyevero] Commonly, the words epe reQvavai Srj, 
are added, which gloss is correctly omitted in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. 
Vind. 1. 4. 6. Par. D S T., and the Florentine MSS. 



48 


PLATO. 


eyivero' h opart yap brj rpv pXiKiav, otl 7roppa> ijbr) 
tori rov (3lov, c Oavarov be eyyvs. Aeya> be rovro ov 
7Tpos iravras vpas, aXXa rrpos rovs epov Kara\j/r](l)L(r- 
apevovs Oavarov. Aeyco 8e Kal rode rtpos rovs avrovs 
rovrovs. ^Iacos pe oUaOe, (o avbpes, airopLq A oycov 
eaX<VKevai roiovrivv, oh hv v \xas hTticra, d el (pprjv beiv 
&7ravra r:oieiv Kal A eyetv, a>sre anotyvye'iv rpv bUpv. 
rroXXov ye be x. aAA* airopta pev edX co/ca, ov pevroi 
A oyoiv, aAAa ToXpr/s Kal avaiayyvrlas Kal rod eOeXetv 
Xeyeiv rrpbs i upas roiavra, of hv vpiv pev rjbior rjv 
aKoveLV, Oprjvovvros re pov Kal obvpopevov Kal aAAa 
iroLovvros Kal Xeyovros ttoXXcl Kal ava£ia epov, b)S eyco 
(prjpr ola br] Kal eXOicrOe vpeh ra>v aXXav aKOvetv, 
aAA’ ovre rore a hjOrjv be Tv eveKa rov KLvbvvov rrpa^aL 
ovb^v aveXevOepov, ovre vvv pot perapeXei ovrcos 
a.7roXoyrjcrapev<p, aAAa ttoXv paXXov alpovpac <S be 
aTToXoyr]o-6.pevos reOvavai t) eKeCvas (rjv' e ovre yap 
ev bUp ovr ev noXepip ovr ep% ovr aXXov ovbeva 
be l rovro ppyoLvdaOai, ottcos anocpev^erai ttclv 7 tol&v 
O avarov. Kal yap ev rah payais ttoXXclkls brjXov 
yCyvera 1 , otl to ye anoOave'iv av tls eK<pvyoi Kal ottX a 

tijv r)\nciav] Commonly, but most erroneously, opart yap dr} 
tig rr\v rjkiKiav, which is corrected from Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 
1. 4. 6. Flor. d. h. Par. D S T. 

icai rov WeXtiv X.] Commonly Kal rov prj 10. X. which Bekker 
retained. M>) is omitted in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor. d. g. h. Par. D S T. 

Oprjvovvrog re. pov] Commonly Qprjvovvrog pov., which is 
changed from the best MSS. Bekker wrote r epov. 

cnroBavtiv av rig tKfpvyoi ] Commonly <x 7 r. pqiov av rig 
pqiov is omitted in Ven. b. Vind. 3. 6. Flor. a. b. c. e. g. h. i. 
Coisl. Ang. Par. BCDEHST. Yet it is preserved in Bodl. 
which has pdiov. Further on, for the common reading rpairtlg, we 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


49 


a(j>els Kal icf) iKereiav rpanopevos r&v biooKovroov Kal 
aAAat prjyaval iroXXaC elcnv ev eKacrrois rots Kivbvvois, 
losre bia^evyeiv Oavarov, edv rts roXpa { rtav iroieiv 
kcil Xeyeiv. aXXa prj ov rovr p yaA €Tt 6 v } oo avbpes, 
Oavarov eKfpvyelv, 5 aXXa TroAi) yaXeircorepov irovrjpCav • 
Oarrov yap Oavarov Oe t. Kal vvv eyco pev are fipabv s 
ibv Kal 7rpearl3vTrjs h in to rov (Bpabvrepov edXoov, ol 8 ’ 
ipoi Karriyopoi are beivol <al 6£e is ovres inro rov 
Oarrovos, rijs KaKias. Kal vvv ey a> pikv aireipi v(f) 
vp&v Oavdrov biKrjv ocpXoov, 1 ovroi 8’ vtto rrjs aXrjOeias 
oic^XrjKores poyOr)plav Kal abiKiav. Kal eycoye rrn 
ripr\pan eppevoo, Kal ovroi , T avra pev ovv ttov 
lam ovroo Kal ebei ayjeiv, Kal olpai avra perpim 
exetr. 

XXX. To be brj pera rovro eTnOvpo) vpiv xprjapia- 
bijaai, £ Kara\]/Y]<pio-dpevoi poir Kal ydp elpi ijbr) 
evravOa, ev <S pdXicrr avOpcoiroi ypriapopbovaiv,* orav 
peXXoocriv djroOave'iaOai. (f>rjpl yap, a> avbpes, ot epe 
aireKrovare, npooplav vpiv rj£eiv evOv s pera rov epov 

have substituted rparroptvog from Bodl. Coisl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 
3. 4. 6. Flor. d. e. h. Par. D S T., and others. 

/jLrjxavai 7ro\Xai] So the best MSS. for the common reading 
7ro\\ai prixavai. 

oi d’ sfioi Karriyopoi ] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 6. Flor. 
d. g. h. Par. D S T. Commonly ol dk pov k. 

Kal vvv tyu) a7r.] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 6. Flor. 
d. g. h. Par D ST. Old editions, ical vvv Srj lyw. Further on, 
the common reading was a<f vpu>v, which is changed from Basil. 2. 
and Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. a. c. d. g. h. Par. CD. and from 
(an alteration) in B. Ven. b. (from a correction.) 

Kal tyioye r<p npripan ] Bekker gives as a correction Kal lyu> rt 
r. r., against all the MSS. So Ficinus’s translation : atque ego 
quidem poenae acquiesco, et isti. 

XXX. kpk curtKTovaTt ] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 6. Flor, 

F 


50 


PLATO. 


Oavarov tto\v yaXentoTepav vrj AC 77 olav epk cnreKTo- 
vclt€. ]> vvv yap tovto etpyacOe olopevot airaWa£- 
ecrdat tov btbovat ekeyyov tov (3lov. to 8e vp.iv ttoXv 
kvavriov aTro^aeTai, As ey(6 (fyrjpi. ttX.€LOVS ecrovrai 
vpas oi eXeyyovTes, o$? vvv eyA Kareiyov, vpeis be 
ovk rjaOavecrOe * Kal yakeitATepoC ecrovTat oao) veto- 
repot elcri, Kal vpets paXXov ayavaKTrjcreTe. ei yap 
oteo-Oe anoKTeivovres av0p Aitovs eTncryjiaeiv tov ovetbC- 
£etv Tiva vptv, otl ovk op0As Cv T€ > °^ K op0As btavoei- 
(r0€’ ov yap ea0’ avTr\ rj airaXXayr} ovre iravv bwarr) ovt€ 
KaXrj, aAA* eKetvr] Kal KaXXCo-Trj Kal paarq, pr} roi/s 
aXXovs KoXovetv, d aAA* eavrbv TTapacrKev^etv, ottms 
eorat d>? (3eXri(rTOs. Tavra pev ovv vptv tols tcara- 
t/r r](j)i(rapevoLS pavrevcrapevos aTTaXXaTTopat. 

XXXI. Tots Se cnroxj/riifiicrapevois rjbecos hv bia- 
XeyOeirjv virep tov yeyovoros Tovrovl Ttpayparos, ev 
A oi apyovTes aayoXtav ayovat Kal ovtto) epyopat ot 

g. h. Par. D S T. The common reading is bad, ti pe airoicrevtire. 
The sense is : ye who have condemned me to death. 

r) o'lav epk amKTovaTt\ Commonly aTrtKTtivaTt. The perfect 
tense, which is necessary for the sense, is supplied by Bodl. Vat. 
Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6., and many others. 

oleaQe aTroKTtivovTEQ~\ Steph. aTroKTiivavTtq, without the au¬ 
thority of MSS. 

ovk opQdg SiavoeXaOe] Commonly ov koXuiq S., which I have 
not hesitated to change from Bodl. Coisl. Vat. Ven.b. Vind. 1. 4.6. 
Flor. a. c. d. g. h. Par. B C D H S T. Ang. The repetition of op- 
6wq makes the sentence more emphatic. Bekker retained the com¬ 
mon reading. 

ov yap EtrO’ avrrj'\ Commonly ovre, which is corrected from 
Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. a. g. h. Par. D S T. and 
an alteration in B. 

tavrov 7rapa<TK.'] Commonly avrov, which is corrected from the 
best MSS. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


51 


iXOovTa pe bel TeOvavaL. aXXa poL, cb avbpes, tt apa- 
peivaTe toctovtov yjpovov' ovbev yap kco Xvei bLapvOo- 
Xoyijaai irpos aXXriXovs, ecos efeortr. vpiv yap ws 
<f)iXois oxhtlv eTTibectjai i6eX(o to wvC poL £vp(3efi tjkos 
tl 7rore voei. ’E/xot yap, avbpes biKaaraC — vp as 
yap biKaaras KaX&v opO&s av KaXoCrjv — davpaaiov tl 
yeyovev. rj yap elcoOvlb poi pavnKrj rj rov bacpovCov A 
iv pev r<3 irpoaOev XP° V( ? ^avrl iraw ttvkvt) ael -qv 
Kal Travv eirl (rpiKpois ivavTLOvpevr], el tl piXXoipt pi] 
opOtis irpa^eiv' vvvl be £vpfie(3rjKe pot, airep opaTe Kal 
avTOL, TavTL , a ye brj olr)deir) av tls Kat vop(CeTaL b 
ia\aTa KaK&v elvaL . ipol 5e ot/re i^LovTL ecoOev 
OLKoOev rjvavTLcbOr] to tov 6eov arjpeLov, ovTe rjvUa 
ave(3aLvov ivTavdol iirl to biKaaTr/pLov, ovt iv r<5 
Adyo> ovbapov peXXovTL tl ipelv Kal tol iv clXXols 
XoyoLs TToXXa\ov by pe i7rea\e XeyovTa peTa£v. c vvv 
be ovbapov Trepl avTrjv ttjv 7 Tpa&v ovt iv epyu ovbevl 
ovt iv Xoyo) rjvavTLMTaL poi. t( ovv oXtlov elvaL vtto- 
Xap(3avco ; d eya> vplv ipGr Kivbvvevei yap poi to 
£vpfte(3riKbs tovto ayaOov yeyovevai, Kal ovk ecr0’ 
ottcos rjpels opO&s vi-oXap/3avopev, ootol oiopeOa kokov 
elvai to TeOvavaL. peya poL TeKpr/piov tovtov yeyovev 

XXXI. tI 7 rore voti\ Commonly ri it or tvvoei, against the 
usage of the language, and the authority of all the best MSS. 

ovSapov psWovTiTi kpeiv] Commonly ovrs Iv Tip Xoyip ov- 
tievi, pkWovTi ti kptiv, which we have corrected from Bas. 2. Bodl. 
Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4.6., and most others. 

Trepl avTrjv Tr)v 7rp.] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor. d. g. h. D S T., which appears also to be the true reading from 
the preceding kpol 8k ovrs e%. k. t. \. Old editions, xepl ravrtjv r. 
xp., which Bekker has retained. Further on, instead of the common 
reading vavTiwOij we have restored rjvavTMrai, from the same 
MSS. 

TEKprjpiov tovtov ] Commonly tovto , which is changed from 
jBodl. Vat, Ven. b, Vind. 4. Flor. d. g. Par. D S T. 




52 


PLATO. 


ov yap eo- 0 ’ ottcqs ovk yvavn(60r] av p .01 to eu*) 0 os 
ar]p.€iov, d [vr\ tl e/xeAAoi> eyo> ayaOov TTp&fjciv. 

XXXII. ’Evvorj(T(Dp.€V 6 e Kal rrjbe,* <as 7 roAA rj 
eXi tCs i(TTtv ayaOov avro dvai. Avolv yap Oarepov 
€cttl to TtOvavar rj yap olov purjbev dvaL b p,rjb ’ alaOrj- 
<nv wbepiLav p.r]b€vbs e x €LV ™ v T€0V€&Ta, rj Kara ra 
A eyopieva p.eTafio\ri tls TvyydvtL ovcra Kal pt^ToUrjais 
T V 'I'VXII* T °v tottov hOivbe ds aWov tottov. Kal 
€LT€ bri puribepLia 6 alcr0r]aLS Zcttlv, aAA’ olov vttvos, 
€TT€ib6.v tls Ka0evb(ov prjb * ovap p.r]bev opa, 0avp,a<riov 
Ktpbos av dr] 6 0avaTos. eyw yap hv olpcaL* d Tiva 
ZK\e£aiJ.€Vov 8 eot TavTrjv Ti]V vvkto, kv fj ovto) Kare- 
bap0€V, cosre 7 x 776 ’ ovap ibdv, Kal ras aAAas vvKTas re 
Kal 77 /xepas ras tov {3lov tov kavTov avTLTrapa0zvTa 

TaVTT] T7] WKtI btOL (TK^api€VOV cItTCLV, TTOO-aS CLfJL€LVOV 

Kal rjbiov f]]xzpas Kal vvKTas TavTrjs Trjs wktos /3e/3tco- 
K€V iv r<3 kavTov /3ta>, olpiaL av p.r] otl lbi<&Tr)v f Tiva, 
aAAa tov p.iyav fiaaiXia €vapi0pLr]Tovs av evpdv avTov 
ravras g 7 Tpos ras aAAas rj pci pas Kal vvKTas. d ovv 
tolovtov 6 0avaTos ^(tjl, Kepbos eyooye Aeya)* Kal yap 
ovbev 7rAeiW h 6 ttcls ypovos (paCvtTai ovtco brj dvai 77 
p,la vv£. d b ’ av olov aTTobrjpLrjaal Zvtlv 6 0avaTOS 
h0ivb€ ds aKXov tottov, Kal aXr]0rj cart ra Aeyo'/xera, 
ws apa €Kd doiv arravTzs oi restores, tl ]xd(ov 

XXXII. psTohcrimg Ty \pvxy] SoBodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 
Flor.d. g. h. Par. S. Commonly rrjg $v X rjg, which Bekker also has 
retained. We have preferred the dative, because this construction 
was less known to the grammarians, and, therefore, might easily have 
been changed into the other. Further on, dr) is omitted in Bodl. 
Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. d. h. Par. D ST, 

nocrag aptivov J Commonly bnooag, against the best MSS. 

uiravreg oi ts6v.] Commonly 7r dvreg, which is changed from 
all the best MSS. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


53 


hyaOov tovtov elr] av, <o avbpes biKaorrai; el yap 
tls atpLieopievos els * Al bov, airaXXayels tovtcov ro > v 
(fracTKovToov bLKaar&v etvai, evpri<rei rm/j cos aXrjO&s 
biKaaras, olirep kcu Xeyovrai eteel bina&iv, MiWs 
re teal 'P abaptavOvs 1 teal AIokos tea 1 TpLirroXepLos, 
teal aXXot, ocroi t&v rjpudecav bCieaioi eyevovro ev ru > 
kavr&v (31(0, apa (pavXr] &v eh] f) airobppta ; i] av 
’ Opc/>ei £vyyeveaOai teal MovaaCeo teal 'HcrioScp teal 
'OpitfpM eirl 7TO(T(p av tls be£air &v vpiQv ; k eyeo ptev 
yap TToWaKis e6eXa> reOvavai, 1 el ravr ecrnv aX-qOrj, 
€7r el epioiye teal avr& Oavpiaarr] av ehr] f) biarpifir] 
avroOi,™ 67 Tore evrvyoipn TlaXapLrjbei teal Aiavn no 
TeXapfovos teal el tls aXXos r&v TraXai&v bia Kpicnv 
abtteov reOvrjKev avTL7rapa(3aXXovn n ra epiavrov 7 t6.6t] 
7 T pos ra eteeivaiv, cos eyco uTpt.a l, ovte hv ar/b^s elrj. teal 
brj to p,eyi<TTov, rovs eteel e^era^ovra teal epevv&vra 
cos7T ep rovs evravOa bi&ye lv, tls avrcov aoepos eari teal 
tls oterai pcev, ean 8’ ov. era ttoctco 8’ av ns, co avbpe s 
biKaaral, be£airo e^eracrai tov enl Tpolav ayayovra 0 

tovtojv tu> v 0a<rrc.] So the best MSS. instead of the common 
tovtiovI r. <j>. 

IlaXa/iT/flfi] Commonly UaXapySy, which is not more in use 
than Sw/cpary. The true reading is given by almost all the MSS. 

teal drj to ptyiOTOv] Commonly rear drj teal to p., which is 
preserved by Bekker. real is correctly omitted in Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. 
Vind. 1. 6. Flor. d. g. h. Par. DS T. 

Tig avriov ffo(f>og tori] Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1.6. Flor. 
d. g. h. Par. D S T. rig av avriov ; which construction, if it could 
be sufficiently confirmed from other sources, Hermann thinks, De 
Part, av, p. 43., would add much to the elegance of the sense, in¬ 
dicating that it would be by some singular chance that any one 
should be found truly wise. For Tig av is interpreted by Hermann, 
quiforte, “who by chance.” 

F 3 


54 


PLATO. 


ttjp Trokkrjv a-rpariav, rj ’O bvvcrea, rj 'Sicrwpov, rj ak- 
Xoos pvpiovs av rts et7rot p Kal avbpas Kal yvvaiKas ; 
ots e*et biakeyeaOat. Kal {jyveivai kcll k^er6^eiv aprj- 
yavov hv etrj eibaipovtas^ Travrcos. oi) brjirov tovtov 
ye iv€Ka oi end airoKTeivoven' ra re yap akka evbai- 
povecnepoL dcriv oi e/cet tG>p kv66.be, Kal rjbrj top konrov 
ypovov a06vaTo(, dcrLV, ehiep ye ra keyopeva akrjOrj 
eernv . 

XXXIII. ’AXXa Kal vpas yprj, A & avbpes biKaorrai, 
evekmbas elvai tt pos top Oavarov, Kal ev rt tovto bia- 
voeiaOaL akrj6es, h oti ovk eanv avbpl aya9<p kokov 
ovbev ovre ftozrrt ovre TekevTrja-avTi, ovbe apekeirai 
vtto Oe&v ra tovtov t rpaypaTa- ovbk ra ejua vvv airo 
tov avTopdrov yeyovev, akka pot brjkov eon tovto, 
on rjbrj Te6v6vai Kal aTrrjkkaydai TTpayp6Toov fiekTiov 
rjv poi. bta tovto Kal epk ovbapov aireTpe^e to arj- 
peiov, Kal eyorye rots KaTa\\rrj(\)io-apevois pov Kal rots 
KaTijyopois ov tt6vv yakeTraivo). /cat rot ov TavTrj tt} 
btavoia KaTexf/rjcfriCoPTo pov Kal KaTrjyopovv, aXX’ oto'- 
fxevoL pkaiTTeiv' tovto avToh a&ov pep(f)eo-dai. 

T ooovbe pevm avToiv beopat.' tovs viets pov, eirei- 
bav f]Prj(T(o<n, TLptoprjaaorOe, & avbpes, ravra raora 
XvTTOvvTes, c airep eya> vpas ekvirovv, eav vp.iv boK&aiv 

aurjxavov av €ijj] So Bodl. Coisl. Ven. & a. b. Vat., six 
Vindobb., Flor. a. b. g. Zitt. Par. BCDEHSTg. The common 
reading was ajxr]xdvov. 

oi sK&i cnroKTeivovcri] Commonly diroKTtvovm, which is changed 
from Bodl. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. g. h. Par. B D S T. 

XXX11I. did tovto Kal c/xe] Commonly did ravrl, against all 
the best MSS. 

oiopevot /3\d7TTfrv] Commonly fiXaimiv rt. Tt is omitted in 
Bodl. Vind. 1. 6. Flor. g. h. Par. D S. and pr. Ven. b. 

ravrd ravra Xiwovvrec] The common reading, Xvttovvtuq, is 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


55 


rj xpwcLTtov r) aXKov tov nporepov e'jnpLtXe'io-Ocu i) 
apzTrjs, kcu kav So/cwo-t tl tlvai pLrjbkv ovres, oz/etSt^ere 
avTols, a>STT€p eycb vpXv, on ovk kTnpLeXovvTai &v Set, 
/cat olovraC n etz/at ovres ovSei/oy a£tot. /cat kav ravra 
7 tolj}t€, St/cata 7T€7tov0(os iy 0) €( 70 juat V(f) vp.&v aVTOS 
re /cat ot vtety. 

’AAAa yap d 77677 oopa aiukvai, kp.ol p.€v clttoOclvov- 
p.4v(p, vpuv Se /3ta)o-ofxeVots. o 7 rorepot Se rjpikav kpyovTai 
kir) apLZivov TTpaypia, ahtjXov rravn 7 rAr/z> rj r<3 0e<3. 


bad, and was changed by Muretus, Varr., Lectt. VIII. 4. into 
XvrrovvTfQ, which also appears in Bodl, Flor. h. Par. D H S. and 
(from a correction) T. Ang. 

























IIAATQN02 


KPITON 









X 








SCHLEIERM ACHE ITS 


INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITO. 


It has been already remarked in the introduction 
to the Apology, that this dialogue appears to be of 
the same nature with that piece. It seems pro¬ 
bable that the Crito is not, properly speaking, a 
work conceived and framed by Plato himself, but 
a conversation which actually took nlace; and 
which was communicated to Plato as iaithfully as 
possible by Crito, between whom and Socrates it 
had occurred. In this conversation Plato appears 
to have made scarcely any alteration, except that 
he restored and embellished the Socratic mode of 
speaking, which was so well known to him, adorn¬ 
ed the commencement and the end, and perhaps 
here and there supplied little deficiencies. This 
view rests upon exactly the same grounds, which 
have been explained in the introduction to the 
Apology. For neither in the one case nor in the 
other, does there appear any special philosophical 
object; and although the occasion itself naturally 
led to the most important inquiries concerning 
justice, law and compact, in which Plato was cer¬ 
tainly at all times interested, yet these subjects 
are here treated of so exclusively with a view to 



60 


INTRODUCTION TO THE 


the individual case before us, that we clearly see 
that the persons engaged in the dialogue, if the 
conversation actually took place, were wholly 
wrapt up in it; and should it be considered as a 
work of Plato’s, which was written without re¬ 
ference to any thing that actually occurred, we 
must admit that it bears the complete character of 
a work written for a special occasion. Besides, it 
is expressly mentioned in it that philosophical in¬ 
quiry is put aside, since particular principles are 
only stated and taken for granted, without any 
further examination, and with reference to previ¬ 
ous conversations, though by no means as if these 
principles were to be sought for in other writings 
of Plato,—a mode of proceeding never employed 
in those works of Plato which are of philosophical 
importance. But supposing it to have been Plato’s 
own work, what could have been the occasion of his 
writing it ? For there is no sentiment given here, 
which is not contained in the Apology. If how¬ 
ever we should suppose that it was Plato’s inten¬ 
tion only to make known the fact that the friends 
of Socrates offered to assist him in escaping from 
his prison, and that he refused their offer, and 
that the remainder, with the exception of this his¬ 
torical basis, is Plato’s own invention: a more 
minute consideration would perhaps prove, that 
the former part of this supposition can stand the 
test of examination, but not the latter. For on 
the one hand there is nothing remarkable in this 
fact except the manner in which it took place, for 
the result might have been foreseen from the 


CR1T0. 


61 


Apology, and the friends of Socrates would there¬ 
fore have been perfectly justified, even if they had 
not undertaken anything of this kind; on the 
other hand, the conversation itself bears the cha¬ 
racter of one that actually took place, which must 
always to a certain degree be subject to chance 
circumstances; but these characteristics would not 
be suited to a conversation that was deliberately 
and artificially composed. For dialogues of the 
former class may easily abandon an idea after 
barely alluding to it, or they may confirm and 
establish by repetition what might at once have 
been said decidedly and expressly; the latter, on 
the contrary, can neither return to the same point 
without having some particular object in view, for 
their progress would be interrupted, nor raise ex¬ 
pectations which they do not satisfy. The cha¬ 
racteristics of the former kind of conversations are 
manifest in the Crito, and although the idea is on 
the whole beautifully and clearly defined, yet the 
connection of its parts is often loose, unnecessarily 
interrupted and carelessly resumed. Of these de¬ 
fects of a real conversation, which is reported to a 
third person, scarcely one will be found entirely 
wanting in the Crito. 

I still think it possible for this dialogue to have 
been written by Plato in this manner; and I con¬ 
ceive that writing it so near the death of Socrates, 
he may have treated such a conversation as con¬ 
scientiously as he did the Apology. It was only 
at a more distant period, to which according to 
my view the Phsedo belongs, that he could even 
G 


62 INTRODUCTION TO THE 

on circumstances connected with the death of So¬ 
crates, depart from a strict adherence to facts, and 
proceed to use them freely, and to interweave 
them in a work of his own, destined to illustrate 
certain philosophical problems. For the present, 
at any rate, I shall endeavour by means of this 
view to vindicate the claims of Plato to this dia¬ 
logue, until some criticism more solid than any 
that has been hitherto produced, shall prove that 
it is not his work. Two things, chiefly, induce 
me to maintain this opinion; in the first place, 
the language, against which Ast makes no parti¬ 
cular objection, which unites all the peculiarities 
of the first period of the Platonic writings just as 
clearly as the language of the Apology; and second¬ 
ly, the great strictness with which the author keeps 
to the individual case which is the subject of the 
conversation — abstaining from introducing any 
kind of enquiry concerning first principles — an 
act of moderation, which such inferior men as 
the other Socratic philosophers, were certainly in¬ 
capable of; and by which Plato at the same time 
clearly distinguishes this work from his other 
writings. Hence the strong emphasis, which is 
laid on the assertion, that all deliberation in com¬ 
mon is impossible for those who start from dif¬ 
ferent moral principles—an emphasis, which must 
rather be ascribed to Plato, who thereby intended 
to explain the nature and the tenor of the conver¬ 
sation, than to Socrates, who would hardly have 
made use of it towards his friend Crito, since he 
could only differ from him in his inferences. 


CRITO. 


63 


Little importance, perhaps, is to be attached to 
the statement of Diogenes, that the conversation 
actually occurred between Socrates and iEschines, 
and that Plato, from dislike towards the latter, 
substituted Crito in his place. However, it is 
possible that Plato in this respect may have made 
some alteration, and chosen Crito, who was most 
secure by his station and age from unpleasant con¬ 
sequences, and who probably died soon after the 
death of Socrates. The desire, at least, of not 
compromising any of the Athenian friends of So¬ 
crates is evident from the fact, that Plato only 
mentions strangers as having partaken in the plan 
of saving Socrates by his escape from prison. So 
that the fact itself is not improbable, but the mo¬ 
tive seems to be fictitious, but whose invention it 
is we do not know. 


Note. — I can hardly assent to the opinion of 
Schleiermacher, that the Crito is not intended to 
inculcate any philosophical doctrine, but is merely 
an account of a conversation which occurred be¬ 
tween Socrates and Crito. The object of Plato, 
in this dialogue, appears to me to have been of a 
two-fold nature;—first, to show that Socrates re¬ 
spected the laws so much, that he would not even 
escape from prison in violation of those laws; and 
secondly, to teach the important principle that the 
laws must under every circumstance be obeyed, 
and that for all practical purposes that which is 



64 


INTRODUCTION TO THE 


ordained by the laws must be considered as just. 
The whole life of Socrates is an exemplification of 
this principle; and he frequently alludes to it in 
the Apology, which Plato has put into his mouth. 
This doctrine is frequently maintained by him in 
the writings of Plato and Xenophon; and is dwelt 
upon at considerable length in a conversation with 
Hippias, which is recorded in the Memorabilia of 
Xenophon, * in which he expressly asserts that 
the v6[juijlov is the same as the hUaiov , that the 
lawful is the just However much this principle 
may be denied by reasoners on abstract rights, it 
is nevertheless one, on which all civil society is 
based. It has been argued by some writers, that 
“ according to Socrates, individual laws are by no 
means to be considered irresistible and immuta¬ 
ble,” but this assertion is totally devoid of truth; 
for there is no example of his disobeying the laws 
himself, or urging others to resist them. 

Siivern, in his Essay on the Clouds of Aristo¬ 
phanes,f remarks, upon this subject, “ The well- 
known discourse between Socrates J and Euthyde- 
mus has indeed been quoted, to characterise in an 
especial manner this presumed position of Socrates, 

‘ that subjectivity has stepped into the place of laws, 
institutions, and other enactments of immediate 
application, and was itself become the ultimate 
rule and standard,’ proving at the same time that 
which was formerly a steady holdfast to the un¬ 
prejudiced and honest conscience, to be in reality 

* IV. 4. 

t p. 101. Engl. Transl. 

+ Xenophon. Mem. IV. 2. § 9. foil. 


CRITO. 


65 


of a vacillatory nature; but this discourse has 
been cruelly misunderstood, and it would only be 
necessary to read through the whole, and especi¬ 
ally the twenty-first section (for the eferacris oi 
Euthydemus, which is ever conducted in the same 
manner by new questions; and finally his own 
confession, section thirtieth, ought to be well 
weighed), in order to have a clear conception oi 
the views of Socrates. These were no other than 
to draw this young man through a series oi 
groundless and vague changes from one opinion 
to another, from the definite and express avowal 
of one maxim and then of another upon things 
which he fancied he already knew, to a conviction 
of his own ignorance and insignificance. It is 
sufficiently clear, from Xenophon’s Memorabilia,* 
and from the Critias of Plato,f that Socrates knew 
full well, that under no pretence, and no circum¬ 
stances was it permitted to do wrong, nor even to 
repay wrong with wrong; and if he held acts of 
violence against enemies in war ( TroXe/iiovs ) to be 
justifiable, he granted nothing more than what is 
admitted by states and people all over the world; 
and most particularly he did not go a step beyond 
the grounds of what was universally received and 
acted upon throughout Greece.” 

Hume, in his “ Essay on ths Original Con¬ 
tract,” J observes, that “ the only passage he had 

* II. 2 . § 2 . 

f p. 156. 157. 

X Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects, vol. I. p. 533 
London, 1768. 

G 3 


66 


CRITO. 


met with in antiquity, where the obligation of 
obedience to government is ascribed to a promise, 
is in Plato in Critone; where Socrates refuses to 
escape from prison, because he had tacitly pro¬ 
mised to obey the laws.” This doctrine certainly 
appears to be partly taught in the twelfth chapter 
of the Crito; but it is not probable that Plato 
intended to maintain the doctrine of the “ Origi¬ 
nal Contract,” as it is understood by modern 
writers; since if he had, it is impossible to believe 
that such an important subject would not have 
been discussed by him in other parts of his 
writings. 

This dialogue is usually inscribed KpCraiv rj 
Kepi TipcLKTtov. The latter title appears to have 
been added by the grammarians. 


riAATGNOS 


K P I T £2 N. 


Chap. I. T i TrjviKade a<pi£ai, GO K pLTOOV ; 7] OV TTp(p 
2 tl €(ttlv \ KP. Ylaw pfkv ovv. 2X2. TlrjvLKa paXiara ; a 
KP. v O pdpos (3advs. b 2X2. Oavp,6.(a), ottcos fiOe\r](re c 
(tol 6 tov becrpLMTrjpLov (f)v\a£ inraKovo-ai. KP. Bv- 
vrjOr]s rjhr] p.ot Zvtlv, go 2d>/cpares, bia to ttoW&kls 
bevpo (f)oirav , /cat tl /cat ev€pyeT7]TaL d inf kp.ov. 2X2. 
v Aprt <5e rjf/cets t) 7raAat ; KP. ’Ernet/CGos 7:d\ at. e 

Chap. I. r) ov irpip ert] All MSS. read 7rpan. But Fischer, on the 
authority of the old giammarians, rightly judged that vp<p ought to be 
restored. See Tim. Gloss, under this word. Hermann De em. rat. 
Gr. Gr. I. 8. p. 36 sqq. The metre in Aristophanes every where 
requires Trptp to be a monosyllable, as Brunck observes ad Lysistr. v. 
613., although the MSS. have 7rpan in that passage also. The 
ancient copyists, instead of subscribing the t to the long 4 vowels, 
used to put it after them, which we know to have been constantly 
done in the Bodleian MS. But Buttmann was deceived in recom¬ 
mending the rejection of t by an appeal to the authority of the 
Etym. M. which speaks only of pronouns of the dual number. 
Compare Matthiae Gr. Grammar, vol. i. p. 118. 

ottujq riOkXrjae <rot] Ven. a. Coisl. Vind. 2. 3. 5. and pr. Ang. 
fjQtXe, which Buttmann ought not to have admitted. 

Kai Tt Kai evepysTijTcu ] Aid. with Par. E. Flor. b. g. i. /cat rot 
/cat. Aid. Bas. 2. Steph. evepyertiTai, which we have changed from 
Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. Flor. a. c. d. e. h. i. Tub. 
Zitt. Huet. Ang. Par. H. S. In several other MSS., evijpykTrjrat, 
which is interlined in Bodl. See note. 



68 


PLATO. 


212. Etra ttwj ovk evOvs eTtriyeipas pe, aXXa (nyfj 
7rapaKd0r](TaL ; KP. Ov pa tov AC, co 2a>Kpar€S, ovb * 
&v avros JjOeXov* ev Toaavrp re aypvTTViq Kal Xvirr) 
elvai. aXXa Kal crov iraXai Oavpafa alcrdavopevos, a>s 
rjbeas Kadevbecs ,g Kal eiTLTrjbes oe ovk rjyeLpov, Iva a>s 
r\burTa bLayr)$. h Kal 'iroXXaKLS pev br/ ere Kal irpoTepov 
ev iravrl ra> /3ta> evbaipovia-a tov rpoirov, 1 ttoXv be yu,d- 
Xtora ev rf\ vvvl 'napearuxrp £vp(popq, a>s pabias avrrjv 
Kal Trpdois (j)ep€L$. 212. Kal yap av, co K piriov, TrXr)p- 

peXes eli) ayavaKTeiv ttjXlkovtov ovra, el be t rjbr) re- 
Xevrav. . KP. Kal aXXot, S) ScoKpares, tijXlkovtol ev 
TOLavrais £vp.(f)opais aXiaKOVTai, k aAA’ ovbev avrovs 
emXveTai r) fjXiKia to pi) ovyl ayavaKTew tt} tt apovorj 
Tvyr). 212. *Eori rai>ra. aAAa rt br) 1 ovtoi irpcp affi¬ 
nal ; KP. ’ AyyeXlav, co 2coKpares, <pep(ov yaXeT:r)V, 
ov <roi, a>? epol (J>aLveTaL, m aAA’ epol Kal rots cot? €7rL - 
TrjbeCois TraaL Kal x a ^ € ^V v KaL fiapelav, r)v eyco, cos 
epol boKco, ev tols (3apvTaT n av eveyKaipi. 212. Tlva 
TavTi)v;° rj to ttXolov a</)tKrai p €K AriXov, ov be t a</>i- 
Kopevov TeOvavai pe ; KP. Ov tol brj acfriKTai, aXXa 
boKeX pev poi rj£eLv q rrjpepov e£ uv aTTayyeXXovaiv 


ev ToaavTy Tt ayp.] So Bodl. Vind. 2. 4. 5. 6. Tub. Ven.a.b. 
Flor. a.b. c. f.h.i. Ang. Huet. Zitt. Par. BODE HS. Ang. with 
Bas. 2. Iti the common editions rt was wanting j it is put after 
aypvTeviq. in Vat. Vind. 1. 3.6. Flor. d. g. 

avrovQ tTriXvtTai] So Bodl. Vind. 1. 6. 7. Flor. d. f. g. Huet. 
Par. D S and pr. Vat. b. Commonly avrolg. 

fepuv xaXeirrjv] Bodl. with some others: x a XtTTr)v icai (5a- 
ptiav, ov k. t. A., which arose from what follows. The error 
may be detected from some MSS. having Kal (5aptlav marked with 
points. 

aWadoKti psv poiifce tv] Bodl. Tub. Flor. h. Par. D. Ven. b. 

doKSIV. 


CRITO. 


69 


qKOvres nves cltto SovvCov Kal KaTaXmovTes €/cet avTo. 
bij\ov ovv €K Tovroiv T&v ayyeAcoz;, ort rj^et Tqpepov, 
Kal av&yKr) brj eh avpiov ecrrat, w 2c«)/cpares, tov (3Cov 
ae TeXevTav. 

II. 212. ’AAA*, w K piroiv, rvyri ayaOfj . a et ravrrj 

rots deois <pC\ov, ravrp lorco. ov pevTOL oTpai rj£eiv 
avTOTr/pepov. KV. Hodev tovto TeKpaCpei ; 212.’Ey<w 
trot ep&. TYf yap ttov va-repaia be t pe airoQvqaKeiv rj fj 
av lA#77 b to t:\oiov. KP. <Pacri ye tol brj ot tovtcov 
K vpLOi . c 212. Ov toCvvv rrjs eTfiovaqs rjpepas olpai 
avro rj£eiv, aAAa r^s Irepas. TeKp.aCpop.ai 8e e/c rtvos 
IvvwvCov, 6 empa/ca oAtyov rrpoTepov TavTqs ttjs vvktos * 
/cat KLvbvveveis ev KaLpcp tlvl d ov/c eyeXpaL pe. KP. ? Hv 
8e 87) tC to evvnvLov ; 212. ’E8o/cet rts pot yvvq rrpos- 

e\6ovaa e KaXrj Kal eveibris , Aev/ca ip6.Tia eyovaa, Ka- 
AeVat pe Kal eirreiv, T 12 2ft>/cpares, rjpaTL Kev rptrarft) 
<&QCr)v epCj3co\ov Xkoio. KP. '12s aro7rov f to evvmnov, 
S 2c oKpaTes. 212. ’Evapyes pev ow, cos y’ epol 8o/cet, 
a» Kp^rcov. 

III. KP. ACav ye, ws eoiKev. aAA’, co haipovie a 
2ft)/cpar€S, ert /cat vuv epot ireCOov Kal acaOqTL' cos 
epoC, eav crv arroOavrjs, ov pCa £vp(popa eaTiv, aAAa 

II. q y hv t\%] Commonly IA Qoi, contrary to usage, and to the 
authority of the best and most numerous MSS. 

<J?a<n ye roi 5)}] Commonly 5e ye rot drj, against the MSS. 

iig y epoid.'] Commonly wg epoi d. Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 
1. 6. 7. Huet. Par. D S. Flor. f. g. h. (og ye pot d. But correctly, 
Tub. Flor. d. wf y epoi d. 

III. ov pia %vp<p.~] Commonly ovdepia, which is corrected from 
Coisl. Ven. E. Vind. 2. 3. Par. BEH. Ang. Flor. i. Zitt. Im¬ 
mediately afterwards, ecxTiv dXXa is from Bodl. Coisl. Ven. a. 
Ang. Par. B E H. Vind. 2. 3. Zitt., for the common reading hnv 


70 


PLATO. 


XUipls pitV TOV €(TT€pr](T0aL TOtOVTOV kmTYfbetoV, oXov 
eyo> ovbiva pari ttot€ tvprja-(x), hi bt Kal ttoAAoij 5o'fo>, 
ol ipit Kal at pj] cracfy&s icracnv, &s oXos r &v ere croa- 
(eiv, et r)0tkov avakicrKtiv xpW aTa > ap,t\.r}(rai. h Kal 
tol tls av alayiiov tir] Tavrr]s bo£a c 1 ) boKtiv yjpr\p.aTa 
Tit pi ir^tiovos 7roitia0ai t) cf)i\ovs ; ov yap TTtiaovTat 
ol 7 roAAot, a>9 av avros ovk rj0i\r]aas amhai iv0tvbt, 
rjpicav TrpoOvpLovpievaiv. 212. ’AAAa rt fjpiiv, co piaKapit 
Kpinov, ovtco rrjs r<3 v ttoW&v bo^rjs pit Act ; ot yap 
tTUtiKtararoi, &v piaWov afjiov (f>povn(tiv, rjyrjaovTai 
avra ovtco TrenpayOai, cosirtp av irpayOfi. KP. ’AAA* 
opas brj , on avayKrj, co Sw/cpare?, Kal rrjs t&v 7to\\ojv 
bo£r]s pit\tiv. avra bt brj\a ra iTapovra d vvvi, on oloi 
t tlalv ol 7roAAot ov ra apnKporara tQv kokS>v t£tp- 
ya£ta0ai, aAAa ra pityiara (T\tbov, tav rt? tv avrois 
bia(3t(3\r}pitvos r\. 212. Et yap &cf)t\ov, <o Kpiroov, 

otot rt tivai ol noWol ra pityiara KaKa t£tpy6.£ta0ai, 
tva 0 X 01 rt yaav e av Kal aya0a ra pityiara' Kal KaXws 
hv etye. vvv bt ovbhtpai otot re* ovrt yap (f>povipiov 
ovrt acfrpova bvvarol TTOirjaai, iroiovai bt tovto, 6 rt 
av rvycoaiv/ 

aX\rj, aAAa \P» In other MSS. a\\a is omitted, and a\\ij pre¬ 
served. 

X<*>pic ptv tov lortp.] Wolf’s correction. The MSS. have 
oov. 

apfXrjoai] So Bodl. Coisl. Par. DEHS. Angel. Ven. b. 
Vind. 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. Flor. f. g. h. i. Tub., and others. Commonly 
d.pt\r]Gaipi. 

avra dk tfijjXa] Steph. without necessity conjectures drjXoi. 

'Iva oloi T€ r]Gav an] av is found in Ven. b. Huet. Par. D S. 
We have followed Bekker in adding it. 

k at ica\u)Q av £7x £ 0 ^ is omitted by Steph. and Ven. SJ. 

Vind. 7. It is found in all the others. 


CRITO. 


71 


IV.. KP. Tavra pev brj ovrcos exera’ rabe b£, co 
ScoKpares, elire poi. apd ye prj epov 7Tpopr}0ei & Kal 
TO)V aXX(OV €7TLT7]b€L(OV, pT), eaV (TV h0evbe e£eX0r}S, Ot 
crvKO(f)avTCU rjpiv rrpaypara rrapex^aiv as ere ev0evbe 
^KKAeS/raert, Kal avayKacr0apev rj Kal tt acrav rrjv ovcrlav 
aTTo(3aXeiv, rj avyya xPW aTa > h 1 ) Kal aXXo tl irpos 
rovrois TraOtiv; el ydp tl roiovrov <f)o(3ei, eaaov avro 
\a(p€LV' c rjpeis yap ttov biKaioi eapev aacravres ere 
KlvbweveiV TOVTOV TOV KlvbwOV Kai, kaV berj, €TL TOV- 
TOV peL&i). a\y epol TT€10OV Kal prj aXXaS TToCei. d 
212. Kal ravra TTpoprj0ovpai, a Kpirav, Kal aXXa 
noXXd. KP. M?jre roivvv ravra cf)o(3ov ,e Kal yap 
ovbe 7 toXv rapyvpiov eernv, 6 0eXovcri Xaftovres rives 
(r&crai cre Kal e£ayaye iv ev0evbe. eireira ov\ opas rov- 
rovs rovs ovKO(f)dvras f as evreXeis, Kal ovbev av beoi 
e7r’ avrovs s ttoXXov apyvpiov ; crot 8e vrrapyei pev ra 
epa yprjpara, h ws eyapai, iKava • erreira Kal et rt epov 
KTjbdpevos ovk oiei beiv avaXiaKeiv rapa, £evoi ovroi 
evOabe 1 eroipoi avaXiaKeiv. els be KeKopiKev err avro 
rovro apyvpiov iKavov, 'Eippias 6 Grj(3alos' eroipos Se 
Kal Kej3r]S Kal aXXoi iroXXol naw. cosre, orrep Xeya), 
pr\re ravra (f)oftovpevos d770Kdprjs k cravrov enScrai, pr\re 
l) eXeyes ev r<3 biKaarrjpia, 1 bvsx*P*s aoi ytvecrOco, on 
ovk av exois e£eX0av o n XPV 0 ravra. m ttoXXuxov 
pev yap Kal aAAocre ottoi av d<pUr} n ayanrjcrovai ere- 

IV. Mrjrt roivvv r. 0.] Commonly pr) which is changed from 
Bodl. Ven. b. Tub. Vind. 7. Flor. f. h. Huet. Par. DS. 

tig 8k Ktico/i.] Commonly tig 8k Kai Keicop. ., but Kal is omitted 
in Ven. b. Vind. 1. 3. 4. 6. 7. Flor. a. c. g. h. Huet. Par. D., yet 
Bekker has preserved it. 

o ti XPV°] S° Bodl. Ven. b. and most others, for the common 
reading xpV* 


72 


PLATO. 


eav be fiovXy els GerraXCav levai, elalv ep.ol e/cct fe- 
voi, ot ae Trepl ttoXXov Troir\aovTai Kal aacfrdXei&v aot 
Trape£ovrai, usTe ae pcrjbeva XvTretv tuv Kara 0er- 
raXCav. 

V. y E tl be, a> 2c oKpares, ovbe biKaiov pt,oi boneis 
enixeipeiv Trpayp.a, aavrov irpobovvai, e£ov auOfjvaL • * 
/cat TOLavra (nrevbeis Trepl aeamov yeveaOai, airep av 
kcu ot ex^pol (tov (nrevacuev re Kal eaTrevaav ae 
Oeipai ftovXopevoi. Trpos be tovtols Kal tovs vlets tovs 
aavrov epioiye boKeis Trpobibovai, ovs aoi e£ov Kal 
eK0pe\{/aL Kal eKTratbevaai olxwei KaTaXnr(6v, b Kal to 
(tov p.epos, c 6 tl av rvx^aL, tovto TTpa£ovaL' d rev^ovra t 
be, a>s to el kos, tolovtuv, oldrrep etude ytyveaOaL ev 
Tats op^avtais Trepl tovs opcpavovs. rj yap ov XPV V 
TroieiaOai rratbas, rj £wbLaTaXanrupelv Kal rpecpovra 
Kai TraibevovTa’ av be p.0L boKeis ra padvpLOTara al- 
peia0aL. e XPV be, airep av dvyp dyados Kal avbpelos 
eXoiTo, Tama alpeiaOai, (fraaKovra ye brj aperrjs bca 
rravTos tov /3lov em/xeActcr^at. us eyuye Kal vrrep aov 
Kal virep rjpuv tuv auv eTTLTybeCuv alaxvvopcaL / / X7 / 
bogy airav to irpaypa to Trepl ae avavbpia tlvI rrj tJ/xc- 
Tepa TreTTpaxOai, Kal rj etsobos rrjs bucqs els to bLKaa- 
rrjpLov* us elsrjXOes, e£ov /xt) elseXOecv, Kal avros 6 
ayuv Trjs btKT]s h us eyeveTo, Kal to reXevraiov brj 

V . roiavTa (JTT£vd(iQ~] Stephens has rashly corrected <nrevSuv. 
For these words do not depend on what goes before, but make a 
sentence by themselves. 

av 8e noi SoKtig'] Bekker from some MSS. has given 8' k/xoi 8. 

uig dgnXQcg] Bodl. Ven. b. Flor. d. f. eigrjXOev : in Bodl. 
however, dgrjXOeg is interlined. The third person can scarcely be 
admitted consistently with what follows, i%6v fin ugsXQtXv. 


I 


CRITO. 73 

tovtl, mnep KarayeXoos rrjs TTpa^eoos, 1 kclklcl tlvI kcll 
avavbpia rfj riperepa biaire^evyevaL fjpas boKeiv, k ol- 
nves ere ovyl ecr&aapev, ovbe crv cravrov, 1 otov re ov 
kcu bvvarov, el n Kai apiKpov rjp&v ocpeXos rjv. m ravra 
ovv, co 2coKpares, opa, per} apa rw kclkw kcll alcrypa fj 
(rot re Kai ijpiv, aAAa (3ovXevov, paXXov be ovbe (3ov- 
\eve(r6aL n eri &pa, aAAa (3e(3ovXev(T0aL. pea be (3ovXrj- 
rrjs yap emovoryjs vvktos ravra navra bel ireirpayOai’ 
el be n rcepipevovpev, abvvarov Kai ovKen olov re. 
aAAa rtavrl rpoTup, a> So&Kpares, nel0ov poo Kai pr]- 
bapats aAAcos TtoUi. 

VI. 212. ’12 (f)i\e Kplrcov, rj 'irpoOvpia crov ttoXXov 
a£la, el per6. nvos opOorrjros elr]’ & el be pri , oao) pel- 
Ccov, roaovruf yaXeircorepa. (TKOTrelarOaL ovv ypr] fjpas, 
elre ravra rrpaKreov elre prj' cos eyei) ov povov vvv, 
aAAa Kai alel roiovros, oXos r&v epcov h prjbevl aXX(p 
'neCOeaOai fj r<3 Ao'yto, os av poL XoycCopevco (3eXno-ros 
(fralvrjraL. rovs be Xoyovs, ovs ev ra> epirpocrOev eXe- 
yov, ov bvvapaL vvv eK(3aXeiv, c eTieibrj pot rjbe rj rvyr] 
yeyovev, aAAa cryebov n opoiot <f>aLVOvra ( pot, Kai 
rovs avrov s 7 rpecr(3ev(o Kai ripa>, d ovsirep Kai irporepov 
8>v eav pr} ,QeXrla> Zywpev Xeyeiv ev rw irapovn, ev 
1<t6i, otl ov prj aoi £vyya)pri(r(D, e ovb ’ av 7rAet6) r&v vvv 
r:ap6iK(vv f fj r&v 7 toXXg)v bvvapis oosirep TraXbas fjpas 
poppoXvrrrjrai, beapovs Kai Oavarov s em7Tep7TOV(ra Kai 


ovxt kffuMTapev'] So Bodl. Ven. b. Tub. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. Flor. 
f. h. Par. D. for the common reading ov dieocjaaptv. Almost all 
the others have ovic k<r<Z)<raixev. 

ti 8e ti 7 repipev.] n is added from Ven'. b. Vat. Tub. Vind. 2. 
3. 4. 6. 7. Flor. d. f. h. Huet. In Bodl. is ei 8’ in n r. 

VI. tovq 8k Aoyove] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 7. Tub. Huet. 
Flor. f. h. for the common reading 8rj. 

H 


74 


PLATO. 


XpiyjiaTMV dcfnaiperreLS . s n<3s ovv hv fzerptwrara 
(rKoirolpLeda h avra; Et ir p&tov ptev tovtov tov Xoyov 
avaXb/SoLpiev, 1 ov av A eyas k irepl t&v bo£&v, iroTepov 
KaX&s eXeyeTO e/c^o-rore rj ov, on rats pkv bel t&v 
8of &V 7TpOS€^€LV TOV VOVV, TdlS be OV ' 7) 7 Tp\v pL€V ep£ 
beiv cn:oQvr}(rKeiv KaX&s eAeyero, vvv be Ka^abyXos 
apa eyeveTo, 1 otl aAAcos eveKa Xoyov m eXiyeTO, tfv 8£ 
TTCLLbia kcu <f)Xvap(a &s aXijO&s ; eHL$vpL& 8* eyonye 
ei:L(TKe\\racr6ai, 2) Kpinov, KOLVrj /utera (rod, el t£ /xot 
dXXotoTepos (fraveiTcu, eireLbr] &be rj 6 avros, kcu 
edo-opev yaipeiv, rj ireLaopieOa am &. eAeyero be irons, 
&s ey&picu, l/caorore <S8e viro t&v olop.evoov tl Xeyeiv, 
onsirep vvv brj ey& eXeyov, on t&v bo£&v, as oi av- 
OpomroL bo£aCov(n, beoL ras ptev irepl iroXXov iroLelaOai, 
ras be p.r). tovto irpbs 6e&v, a> KptToov, ov boKel Ka- 
X&s col XeyecrOai ; av yap, oaa ye Tav6p&ireia, n emos 
el tov pteXXeiv airo6vrjaK€LV avpLov, Kal ovk av cre rra- 
paKpovoi i) irapovaa ^vpupopa. aKoireL brj • ov\ iKav&s 
boKei 0 (toi XeyeaOaL, otl ov irdaas XPV T ds bo£as t&v 
dvQp&rronv Tipuv, aXXa tcls p.ev, ras 8’ ov ; ovbe irdv- 
Tonv, aXXa t&v p,ev, t&v 8 ’ ov; tl (pps ; Tama ovyl 
KaX&s Ae'yerat ; KP. KaAcos. 212. O vkcvv ras piev 
XprjfTTas TLp,av, ras be irovrjpas pdj ; KP. Nat. 212. 
'KprjcrTal be oi>x at t&v (fnpovLpionv, irovrjpal 8 £ at t&v 
acfnpovonv ; KP. ITcos 8’ ov ; 

VII. 212. <i>epe brj, ir&s av ra rotaora eAeyero ; 


\eyeig rrepl robv So%&v~\ Euseb, tov Trepi ru>v 8o£u>v. 

£7reidrj tide £X W 1 Commonly IttsiSi) ye &Se against the MSS. 
t&q 8o%ag tS)V avOp.'] Vind. 1. 6. Vat. Flor. d. with Euseb. 
rag Sogag rag ru>v avOp. unnecessarily. A little further ovdl 
7T avroiv — ru)V S’ ov, are wanting in Bodl. Ven. b. Flor. h. Huet. 
Par. D S., yet they are found in the margin of Bodl. 



CRITO. 


75 


yvpLva(opevos avrjp Kal tovto it part (hv* iroTepov iravros 
avbpbs halva* Kal xj/oyco Kal bofy tov vovv itposeyjei, 
r) evos piovov heivov, os av Tvyyavp larpos rj iratbo- 
rpifiris &v ; b KP. 'Evos ptovov. 212. Ovkovv <po(3eLcr0aL 
ypr] to vs \f/oyov s Kal acnraCecrOai rovs eitalvovs tovs 
tov evos helvov, aAAa pir] rovs t&v itoXX&v. KP. 
A rj\a br/. 212. T avTij apa ovt& itpaKTeov Kal yvpva- 
(jtzov Kal ebeaTeov ye Kal itoTeov, fj hv r<5 hi boKrj r<3 
imcrTaTrj Kal eiraiovTi pcaWov rj fj £ vpmacri rots aAAots. 
KP. v Eart ravra. 212. ETev. aireidrjo-as be r<3 hi Kal 
aTLpidcras avTov ttjv bo£av Kal tov s halvovs, Tip^cras 
be tov s t&v ttoW&v Kal pirjbev eitdiovToov apa ovbev 
KaKov ireCaeTaL ; KP. ITcos yap ov ; 212. Tt S’ eort 

ro KaKov tovto ; Kal irot retvet, Kal els tC t&v tov 
diteiOovvTos ; KP. ArjXov, otl els to cnSjua* tovto 
yap 8to'AAvo-iv. 212. KaAcos Xeyets. ovkovv Kal raAAa, 

VII. og civ Tvyxavy ] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. a. b. Ang. Huet. 
7 Vindobb., Flor. b. d. f. h. i. Zitt. for the common reading ri/y- 
Xavoi. Tub. and a few others, rvyxavei, erroneously. 

Kal tdeoTEOv ye] ye is omitted in Huet. 

nprjffag ds tovq t&v 7 ro\\wv] Bodl. Vat. Ven.b. Vind.1.4.6. 
Tub. Flor. d. f. h. Huet. tovq t&v ttoXX&v \6yovg Kal r. X. which 
is probably a gloss. 

to KaKov tovto ;] to is added from Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Tub. 
Vind. I. 4. 6. 7. Flor. d. f. h. Huet. Par. D S. 

ArjXov, otl tig to <r.] Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. Flor. d. 
f. h. Huet. Par. DS. have the following reading : a7rei9ovvTog ; 
y drjXov 'oTi—dioXX. Crit. KaXwf X'sysig. Socr. Ovkovv icai 
k. r. X. In the same passage, Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1.4. 6. 7. 
Flor. d. h. Huet. Par. D S. dioXXvsi, which form Porson, ad Med. 
p. 455. considers unauthorised by the tragic poets, and Bastius 
Epist. crit. p. 136., by all Attic writers; but see Buttmann. Gr. 
Vol. I. p. 525. 


76 


PLATO. 


go Kpfroov, ovtoos, iva py 7 ravra buoopev. kcll by Kal 
rrepl t&v biKaioov Kal abUcov Kal al<r\p&v Kal KaX&v 
Kal aya0&v Kal KaK&v, Ttepl &v vvv y fiovXy ypiv 
€(ttiv, Trorepov rfj t&v ttoW&v bo£rj Set ypas eiT€(r0ai 
Kal (f)o/3€La0aL ravTyv, rj rfj tov ki’os, el tls kanv 
eTTdtoov, ov Set Kal ala-yyveadai Kal (po(3eLcr0aL paWov 
7] ^vpiravras tovs aWovs; <o el py aKo\ov0ycropev, 
biacf)0epovpev €Keivo Kal X(£>^ya6pe0a, o t& pev St/catco 
fieXnov eylyveTo, rw Se aStK<o cnr&\\.VTO. c rj ovbev 
eon tovto ; KP. OTpat eycoye, go 2c oKpares. 

VIII.. 2X2. <£>epe by, eav to vtto tov vyieivov pev 
(3e\Tiov ytyvopevov, vtto tov voo&bovs Se bia<fi0€L - 
popevov bioXeooopev 7rei0opevoi py Trj t&v eiraiovToov 
b6£rj, & apa (3 lo)tov ypiv £oti, bLecf)0appevov avTod; 
eart Se ttov tovto to o&pa. rj ovyl', KP. NfitL 
2X2. p ovv (3 l(otov ypiv eort pera poy0r]pov Kal 
bie(f)0appevov o&paTos ; KP. Ovbap&s. 2X2. ’AAAa 
p€T £k€lvov apa b ypiv (3 lgotov bie<p0appevov, <o to 
abiKov pev XcvfiaTaL, 0 to Se biKatov ovivyoiv; y cfrav- | 
A oT€pov d yyovpe0a elvai tov o&paTos eKelvo, 6 tl ttot 
eort t&v yperepuv, ire pi o y re aSiKta Kal y biKaioovvy 
eonv ; KP. Ovbap&s. 2X2. ’AAAa Tipi&Ttpov; 
KP. IIoAv ye. 2X2. Ovk apa, go /3eArtcrre, irdvv 

ical (pofitTaQai ravTrjv ] So Vat. Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. a. c. d. f. 
Par. BC. Huet. for the common reading avrjjv. 

VI] I. tovto rb atipd] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. 7 Vindb. Tub. 
Flor. d. h. and others. Commonly to was wanting, with the ap¬ 
probation of Buttmann. 

d\\d per’ e kuvov apa ] Old editions after apa insert h ttiv, 
which is rejected by the best MSS. 

V rb adiKov p'tv A.] Steph. conjectures b which is read in 
Euseb. and in Vind. 3. 4. Flor. d. j but see note. 


CRITO. 


77 


rjpiv ovtco (ppovTLariov, tl epovaiv 6 ol ttoXXoI fjpas, 
cUA’ O TL 6 €TTai(t)V TT€p\ T&V blKaiGOV Kal ablKCOV, 6 eX$, 
Kal avTT) 7] aXrjOeLa. cosre 7 rp&Tov pev ravrp ovk dpd&s 
elsrjyei/ elsrjyovpevos rfs tcov ttoXXcov bo£rjs beLV fjpCLS 
(jypovTL^LV irepl tcov biKaloov Kal KaXcov Kal ayaOoov 
Kal tcov evavTioov. aXXa pev br\, <pa(r] y av tls, oXol t 
elcrlv fjpas ot ttoXXoI aTTOKTivvvvai; KP. AijXa br) 
Kal Tama ■ (f) air] yap av, a> 2coKpares. 8 2X2. * AXriOrj 
Xeyeis. aXX\ cl) OavpacTie, ovtos re 6 Aoyoj, ov bieXr]- 
XvOapev, epoiye boKei eTL opoios eXvai rw Kal 7 rpo- 
Tepov ,h Kal Tovbe av aKonei, el eTL pevei rjpXv r) ov, 
otl ov to £r}v Tiepl TrXei(TTOV TTOirjTeov, aXXa to ev (t}v. 
KP. ’AAAa pevei. 2X2. To Se ev Kal KaX&s Kal bi- 
Kaicos otl TavTov eaTi, pevei, rj ov pevei ; KP. Me'vet. 

IX. 2X2. Ovkovv eK t&v opoXoyovpevcov a tovto 
(TKenTeov, iroTepov bUaiov epe evOevbe 'jreipao-Oai e£ie- 
vai, prj a(f)ievToov *A6rjvaioov, b r/ ov bUaiov' Kal eav 
pev (f)aivr]Tai bUaiov, ireiptopeda, el be prj, e&pev hs 


ri epovaiv] Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. Tub. Huet. Par. D S. ti 
tpovaiv. Commonly o A tp., see note. 

A rj\a dr/ Kal ravra' fair] yap av —] Steph. drjXaSri Kal ravra 
ipa'irj y av Tig. see note. 

ovtoq re 6 \6yog] So Coisl. Vat. Ven. b. Paris. D ES. Huet. 
Angel. Tubing. Flor. a. b. c. h. i. and from a correction in Bodl. 
The common reading was ye. 

doKtltTiopoiog ] ert is added from Ven. b. Huet. Par.D. Flor.h. 
Further on the common reading was rip tt porepip, which is changed 
from Bodl. Ven. b. Huet. Par. DS. Vind. 4. Flor. h. into r<p Kal 
7rp6repov. 

Kal tovSs av GKorrei ] Commonly rovde d'e av gk. But in 
Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Tub. Flor. d. Vind. b. Huet. dk is correctly 
omitted. 

H 3 


78 


PLATO. 


Se a~u Xeyeis ras crKeyf/eis rrepi re dvaXtocrecos XPV“ 
ptdrcov 0 kcu bd£ijs d Kal natbozv rpotjrrjs* ptri cos aXrjOcos 
ravra, co Kptrcov, crKepiptara f 17 r&v pabCcos anoKrtv- 
vvvro)v g Kal ava/3L(i)(TKopL€VGov y dv, el otot re rjo-av, 
ovbevl £vv vcp, rovroov r&v ttoW&v. rjpuv b\ erretbrj 6 
A.o'yos ovtcos alpet, h prj ovbev aXAo aKenreov fj rj onep 
vvv brj ekeyoptev, norepov bUaia irpa^opiev Kal \PV~ 
para reXovvres tovtols rots e/xe ev0evbe e£a£ovat Kal 
ydptras, Kal avrol t^ayovTts re Kal effayopevot, rj rfj 
aXr]0eta abiKrjaopev ravra rravra rtoiovvres' Kav (jrat- 
V(ope0a dbiKa avra epya^opevot, pr] ov bey vrtoXoyl- 
(ea0at ovr el arro0vrj(TK€iv bet rrapapevovras Kal 
rjovyjiav ayovras, ovre aXXo ortovv ndayetv irpo rov 
dbtKetv. 1 KP. KaAws pev pot boKets Xeyetv, co 2(6- 
Kpares, opa be rt bp&pev. 2X2. 'SiKOTT&pev, 2> * ya0e, 
Kotvfj, Kal et nr\ eyets avrtXeyetv epov Xeyovros, avrL 
Xeye, Kat <tol rreCaopar el be prj, 7ra£<rai rjbij, to 
paKdpte, noXXdKts pot Xeyoov rov avrov Xoyov , cos \PV 
ev0evbe aKovrcov ’A 0rjvaC(ov e/xe amevar cos eya> nepl 
ttoXXov notovpat Treto-at <re ravra rrpdrretv, aXXd /xt) 
aKovros. k opa be brj rrjs crKe^ecos rrjv dpyjjv, eav aoi 
UavQs Xiyrjrat, Kal rretpGi anoKpive^at ro epco- 
rdpevov, fj dv pdXtara oXrj. KP. ’AAAa rreipd- 
(ropat. 

X. 2X2. Ovbevl rporup (j>apev eKovras abiKrjreov 

IX. 7rspl re dvaXuxrecjg xp'npo.ruiv] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. 
Tub. 1. 4. 6. 7. Flor.d. h. Huet. Par. D S. The common reading 
was 7T£pt rs xpnparoyv dvaXbxreojg, which Bekker also retained. 

a\\d firj aicovrog ] aKovra, Vind. 6. 

7TEip£j a7rofcptv£<T0at] Old editions ctTroKpivaaQai, against almost 
all the MSS. The present is best suited to the sense. 


CRITO. 


79 


c Tmt, a rj tlvl pev abiKrjreov Tpontp, rivl b^ ov ; rj 
ovbapi 3? to ye abiKeiv ovre ayaOov ovre Kakov, &s 
nokkaKis rjpiv Kal ev r<3 epnpovOev ypovut oipokoyrfQr]; 
onep kcu apn ekeyero. rj naval rjpiv eKeivai at npov- 
Oev opokoyiai ev raisbe rats okiyais rjpepais eKKeyy- 
pevai el(rC, b Kal n&kai, a> Kpiroov, apa rrjkiKoibe yepovres 
avbpes npos akkrikovs vnovbfj biakeyopevoi ekadopev 
rjpas avrovs naiboav ovbev biatpepovres ; rj Karros pak- 
kov c ovtcos €\ei, cosnep Tore ekeyero rjpiv; eire (f>avlv 
oi nokkol eire pri, Kal eire bei rjpas en r&vbe \ake- 
ntorepa n&vyeiv eire Kal npaorepa, opus to ye abiKeiv d 
r<3 abiKovvri Kal KaKov Kal alvyjibv rvyy&vei ov navrl 
rponcp ; cf)apev, rj ov ; KP. <t>apev. 2X2. O vbap&s 
apa bei abiKeiv. KP. Ov brjra. 2X2. Ov&e abiKov- 
pevov apa avrabiKeiv, b)s ol irokkol oiovrai , e eneibij ye 
ovbap&s bei abiKeiv. KP. Ov (paiverai. 2X2. Tt b\ 
brj; KaKOvpye'iv bei, w Kpiraiv, rj ov ; KP. Ov be t brj 
nov, oo 2( oKpares . 2X2. Tt be ; avriKaKovpyeiv kokws 
n^cryovra, as ol nokkoi (pavi, bUaiov, rj ov bUaiov; 

X. rj tivi pev adtic.] Steph. has given tovq pev. But the pas¬ 
sage relates to various modes of doing injustice. 

'one p f cal apn IXsysro.] Heindorf. conjectures wg noXXaictg piv 
r/p7v — wpokoyriQr], arap Kai apn iXeyero. Par. BCE. Ang. Flor. 

a. b. c. f. i. have kyivero interlined. The common reading has this 
sense : which was also said a little time ago. For Socrates, in what 
goes before, has several times referred to this precept, as in c. 8. to¬ 
wards the end. 

aiVxpov rvyxavei] Commonly rvy\aveiv, which is corrected 
from Bodl. Ven. 8. a. b. Vat. Tub., 7 Vindd. Florent. Par. 
BCDES. Zitt. and edit. Aid. Bas. 1.2. 

Tt Sk Sr ];] Commonly n Sal Sr] ; which is changed from Ven. 

b. Vat. Vind. 1. 6. 7. Flor. d. h. Huet. Par. D S. 


80 


PLATO. 


KP. Ovbap&s. 2X2. To yap ttov kokw? ttouiv av- 
dpwirovs rov abiKelv ovbev bia<ftep€L. KP. AXijdrj 
Xeyeis. 2X2. Ovre apa avrabiKeiv bei ovre KaK&s 
'TTOielv ovbeva avdpcoTrcov, ovft av onovv Trdcryr] vi r 
avr&vJ Kal opa, w Kplrcov, ravra KaOopoXoy&v, 07 T£ 0 ? 
pr] 7 Tapa bo£av opoXoyfjs. olba yap, on oXlyois Tien 
ravra Kal boKel Kal bo^eL. 019 ovv ovrco beboKrat Kat 
019 pr), rovrois ovk eari kolvtj fiovXrj, aAA’ avayKt] 
rovrovs aXXpXcov Karatypovelv, op&vras ra aWriXoav 
[ 3 ovXevpara. aKoirei ovv Kal av ev paXa , 5 irorepov 
KOLVonvels Kal ^vvboKel aor Kal apycojoiefla evrevOev 
( 3 ov\evopevoi, w 9 ovbeTrore opOcos tyoi Jro9 h ovre rov 
abiKelv ovre rov avrabiKeiv ovre KaK&s tt aayovra apv- 
veaOat avnbp&vra Ka/cco9* r) acpLaraaat Kal ov Koivcovet 9 
rrjs apxrjs ; epol pev yap Kal iraXai ovrco Kal vvv en 
boKe t, aol S’ el irrj aXhr\ beboKrai, A eye Kal blbaaKe. 
el be eppeveis rots upoaOev, ro pera rovro aKove. 
KP. ’AAA’ eppevco re Kal £vvboKel por aAAa Aeye. 
212. Aeyo) brj av ro pera rovro , paWov b ’ epcorS)' 

ravra KaQopoXoyCjv'] Commonly opoXoydv, which is changed 
on the authority of Bodl. Vat. Yen. b. Huet. Par. D S. Vind. 1. 
4. 6. Tub. Flor. d. 

oi£ ovv ovroj $.] Commonly olg d’ ovru) d. The correct reading 
is found in Bodl. Coisl. Ven.b. Vat. Tub. all the Vindobb. Huet. 
Par. B C D E H S. Ang. Flor. b. c. d. f. h. i. Zitt. and others. 

dpojvrag ra aXXi)X(vv /3.] So Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Tub. Vind. 
1. 4. 6. 7. Flor. d. h. Huet. Par. D S. Old editions aXXrjXojv ra 
(3. Immediately after, the same have £*} ovv for the common reading 
ovv Sr]. 

avridpiovra'] So Bodl. Vat. Ven.b. Tub. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. 
Flor. a. d. f. h. Zitt. Huet. Par. B C D S. Commonly avn - 
Spojvrag. 

Kal vvv tri £ok£I] Huet. Par. D S. Flor. h. teat vvv ovtoj S. 


CRITO. 


81 


TTOTepov a av tls dpoXoyriajf ro) bUcua ovra Ttoiy]Ttov rj 
igaTraTriTiov ; KP. UoLr]Teov. 

XI. 2X2. ’Ek tovtcov brj aOpei. 3, amovres kvOkvbe 

T]p.eis [AT) 7T€L(TaVT€S TtJV TToXLV h TTOTCpOV KCLK&S TIVCLS 
TTOLovpzv, kcu Tama oi)s rjiao-Ta Set, rj ov ; Kal eyot/utc- 
vopev ots u)fAoXoyii(rafjL€V biKaCois c ovvlv , rj ov; KP. 
Ovk €\(jd } to 2<WKpares , > arroKpCvaaQai irpos 6 epcoras* 
ov yap kvvoG>. 2X2. ’AAA’ <58e (tk6tt€L, et pkXXovaLv 
rjpXv kvdkvbe d etre cnrobLbpao-KtLVj et#’ onus bd ovo- 
jxacrai tovto, kXdovTes ol vopoL Kal to kolvov tt}s i ro- 
Aecos® kTucrravres kpoLVTO' Et7re juot ; <o 2mfcpare9, rt 
ez> vkp 7 tolclv ; aXX o tl rj tovto) t< 3 epym/ <o em- 
X€Lpds, biavod tovs re vopovs rjpas arroXkcraL Kal 
^vpiracav rrjv ttoXlv to <rov pkpos ; g rj boKel ctol olov 
re ert kKehrjv rr]V ttoXlv dvai Kal prj avaT€Tpa<f)OaL, h 
kv fj av at yevopevai biKai 1 prjbev io-yvoio-LV, aAA’ into 
ibtooT&v aKvpoL re yiyvozvTai Kal biatyOdptoVTai ; Tt 
kpovptv, o) Kp^rcou, TTpos Tama Kal aXXa TOLama ; 
ttoXXcl yap av tls kyoi, aXXcos re Kal priToap f drtdv 
vtt kp tovtov tov vopov aT:oXXvp.kvov, os tcls bUas tcls 
biKaa-Oetcras TTposTaTTCL Kvptas dvai. rj kpovpev TTpos 
avTovs, otl ’H8ucet yap f)p.as r) 7ToXLs k Kal ovk dpO&s 
Trjv biKr)v eKpLve ; TaSra rj tl kpovpev ; l KP.» T ama 
vrj At’, o) 'EtoKpaTes. 

XII. 2X2. Tt ovv, hv dircoo-Lv ot vopoL, ’X2 2w- 

XI. ev y av ai yevopevai d.~\ yiyvopevai, Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 6. 
Flor. d. and others, but the common reading is preferable. Some 
omitting av, have yiyvovrai icai diatpQeipovrai , which is also 
found in Bodl. and Ven. b. 

XII. Ti oiv, av eh roxriv] The comma was commonly omitted. 
Immediately afterwards, Steph. y Kal r. and diKa^oi, against all the 
MSS. and the meaning of the passage. 


82 


PLATO. 


Kpares, rj Kal ravra vpoXoyrjro fjpiv re kcu (to(, rj 
eppeveiv rats bUcus ats hv fj ttoXls bLKaQj ; a et ovv 
avrQv OavpaCfoipev Xeyovnov, tacos av etiroiev, on 12 
ScoKpares, pfj QavpaCfe ra \eyopeva, aAA’ anoKpCvov, 
eTTtLbrj Kal efcoflas xprjcrOcu no ipcorav re /cat airoKpi- 
veaOai. <£epe yap, rt kyKak&v fjpuv re /cat rfj noXet 
€TrL\€ip€LS fjpas anoXKvvaL ; ov irparrov pev ere iyev- 
vrjaapev b r/juets, /cat bi fjp&v eXafte rfjv prjrepa (rov 6 
TTaTTjp Kal €<PvT€V(T€ (T€ ', (ppCLOTOV OVV, TOVTOIS fjpS>V, 
rots vopois rots Trept rovs yapov s c pep(p€L rt cos ov 
KaA.<3s eyovcnv ; Ov pepefropat,, (paCrjv av. ’AAAa rots 
Trept ri)v rov yevopevov rpo(pfiv re Kat 7rat8etav, d ev 
p Kat av enaibevOrjs; fj ov KaAcos e 7 rposerarrov fjpoov 
ot e7j2 rovrots reraypevoi vopoi, 7rapayyeAAovres r<3 
riarpl r<o a<5 ae ev povaiKrj Kal yvpvaanKjj 7rat8evetv ;* 
KaAcos, (pairjv av. Etev. erreLbrj be eyevov re Kat 
e^erpaepr] s Kat emudev^s/ exots av elireiv irpcbrov 
pev, cos ovxt fjperepos rjaOa Kal ecyovos Kal SovAos, 
avros re Kat ot aoi irpoyovoi; h Kat et rov#’ ovreos 
ex^t, ap’ e£ taov otet etvat aot ro bUaiov Kal fjpuv, 
Kal arr &v fjpeis ae emyeipatpev Trotetv, Kat av 
ravra avruroinv 1 oUi bUaiov eTvai; fj irpos pev apa 

di’ vpojv tXajSc] e\afi(3av£, Bodl. Ven. b. Tub. Huet. Par. D S. 
Vind. 4. Flor. h.; but Ven. b. in the margin, has £\aj3e. 

Trepi rrjv rov ysvopivov] Ven. jEJ. and the margin of Par. BC. 
Flor. a. h. yevvojpevov, which might be defended from Lysis p. 
237. E. Alcibiad. I. p. 121. D. But see Herodot. V. 4. VII. 3. 
A little further, old editions, rj ov koXojq, which is corrected from 
Vind. 2. 5. Ven. b. 

ol €7ri tovtOiq reraypivoi'] I have not hesitated to adopt this 
reading from Bodl. Vat. Tubing. Vind. 1.4.6. 7. Flor. d. h. Huet. 
Par. D S. for the common reading rovr<jj. 

ical av ravra avrur.] So Par. B. Vind. 2. 3. 5. Vat. Ven. a. 


CRITO. 


83 


trot top TTCLTepa ovk e£ to rov rjv to hiKaiop Kal irpos tov 
hecriroT-qp, et trot a>p krvyyapzp, &STe, airep iracryois, 
TavTa Kal apTLiroielp, ovre kokcos aKovopra aPTiXeyeip k 
ovre TV7rrbp,€POP clptltvtttzip ovre aXXa roiavra iroXXa’ 
irpos he tt]p irarpCha apa 1 Kal tops popioos efeorat trot, 
&st€, eap tre eiriyeip&pLep fjpi.e'LS airoXXopai hiKaiop 
rjyoopiepoi e'lpai, Kal av he rjpias tops popioos Kal ttjp 
iraTpiha KaO ’ octop hopaaai eiriyeipriaeis aPTairoXXopaiy 
Kal (prjo-eis Tama iroia>p hUaia irpameip, 6 rfj aXrjOeia 
rfjs aperrjs eiripieXopiePos ; ?? otfrcos et aocpos, cosre 
XeXrjOe tre, ort j urjTpos re Kal iraTpos Kal t&p aXXoop 
irpoyopcop airapTcop Tipud>Tepop eort iraTpls m Kal aepi- 
porepop Kal ayuarepop Kal ep p.ei(opi pioipq n Kal irapa 
Oeo'iS Kal Trap apdpeoirois rot? poop eyooai, Kal (re(3ecr- 
6ai hei /cat piaXXop pireUeiP Kal Oooireoeip iraTpiha x a ~ 
Xeiraipoocrap 7 ) irarepa, Kal rj ireiOeip, rj iroieip 0 a &p 
KeXeorj, Kal iraayeip, eap tl irposTaTTTj iradeip, f]croyj.ao 
ayopra, eap re TpirTecrdai e&o re heicrOai, eap re els 


Tub. Zittav., which we think the true reading. Bodl. Coisl. Yen. 
E b. Yind. 1. 4. 6. 7. Flor. a. b. c. d. f. h. i. Huet. Ang. Par. 
C D H S. Kal <rot ravra. Old editions, ravra Kai av dvr. see 
note. 

7rpog rov beaTrortjv'] The article is added from Bodl. Coisl. 
Ven. b. Tub. Yind. 1.3. 4. Flor. b. Huet. Par. D S. 

oigre, airtp 7 rdo'p£ 0 i£] So Bodl. Vat. Coisl. Ven. S a. b. Tub. 
Vind. 1. 4. 6. Flor. b. c. d. i. Zitt. Par. B C H. Angel, for the 
common reading Traaxag- 

ti)q aperrjg btt ipeXopevog'] Commonly tTnptXovptvog, which 
is changed on the authority of Bodl. Ven. b. Vind. 4. 7. Par. 
DS. Flor. d. h. 

eon 7rarpig] lanv tj 7 rarptg, Bodl. Ven. b. Tub. Vind. 7. 
Huet. Par. S. Flor. h., but there is no need of the article. 

& av KtXtvy] The old editions corruptly give KeXevoi, which is 
changed on the authority of almost all the MSS. 


84 


PLATO. 


7 roXepov ayr\ TpoodijcropLevov rj ai:oQavovp.evov, 'Koiryrkov 
Tavra, Kal to biKaiov ovtoos kyei y Kal ovyl vTteiKTeov, 
ovbe avayoopr)Teov } ovbe XenrTeov tt]V t6,£iv, aXXa Kal 
ev 7 roAe/xa) kcll ev bLKaaTrjpLeo Kal 'navrayov TroLr\Teov h 
av K €Xevp f] ttoXls kcll rj 7raTp(s, 77 TieiOeiv avrrjv fj to 
bUcuov 7T€^)i>Ke ,p fiia&aOcn 8 ’ ov\ oenov ovTe ^Tcpa 
OVT€ TTCLTCpa, TToXv be TOVTOOV €TL t}tTOV T7]V TTCLTpibd. 
Tt (priaopLev irpos tclvtcl, oo KpLToov ; aXrjOij Xeyeiv tov$ 
vopiovs, rj ov ; KP. *E potye boKei. 

XIII. 212. 2*07764 TOLVVVf 00 2 COKpCLT€S , (f)CU€V tlV 
tccos ol uopiOL, el rjpLeLS raora aXrjdrj Xeyop.ev , on ov 
bUaia fipias eirLx^ipets bpav a vvv eiTLyeLpeis. rjpL€L9 
yap ere yevvriaavTes, eK6pe\\ravTes y TrcubevcravTeSj p.e- 
TabovTes cltt6,vtoov oov 0 X 0 C t rjp.ev kclX&v crol Kal tols 
clXXols 7racrt ttoX(tclls, opLoos 'trpoayopevop.ev ra > e£ov- 
<rCav 7TeiTOLrjKevaL a ’A 0r]va(oov r<3 (3ovXop.ev(p, €TT6Lbav 
boKLpiaa-Ofi Kal 1877 b tcl ev Tjj iroXei 7rp6ypLaTa Kal rjpias 
tovs vopovs, m hv piT] apeo-Koop,ev fjpieis, e£eivai Xa- 
fiovTa Ta avTov aiiievai ottol hv ISovXrjTaL. Kal ovbels 

TroLt]Tkov ravra ] Commonly iroirjrka, against Bodl. Vat. Yen. 
b. Tub. Vind. 1. 4. 5. 6. Flor. a. b. c. d. f. h. i. Huet. Par. B. 
C D E S. A little further ov^i for ov\ is supplied by nearly the 
same MSS. 

iceXevy rj 7ro\i£] Commonly keXevoi, against all the MSS. ex¬ 
cept Paris. E. The old editions also have rj -koXiq re /cal y 
7 rarp.f but re is omitted by the best MSS. 

XIII. & vvv £7rix£i|0£i£] vvv formerly omitted, is found in 
most MSS. Also in Bas. 2. 

trot Kai roig aXX .] Editions have <rot te k. t. aXX. I have re¬ 
jected re on the authority of Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Tub. Vind. 1. 3. 
4. 6. 7. Flor. d. h. Huet. Par. DS. 

ETTEiSav SoicipacrQy ] Commonly doicipaay, which Ven. JSJ alone 
appears to have. 


CRITO. 


85 


fjp&v t&v vopcov epnobcav earLV ovb 1 airayopeveL, eav 
T6 TLS (3ovX.7]TaL lipcdv €LS aTTOLKlCLV ttvai, 61 [AT) CLpea- 
Kocpev rjpeLS re kcu rj ttoXls, edv re peroLKeiv dXXoae 
7rot c eXOcov, levai eKeiae, ottol hv fiovXrjTaL, eyovra ra 
avrov. os S’ hv vpcov rrapapeivp, opcov ov rpoixov rjpets 
ras re bUas bLKaCppLev kcu raXXa rrjv ttoXlv bLOLKovpev, 
ijbrj cpapev tovtov vpoXoyrjKevaL epyco rjptv a av rjpets 
KeXevcopev TTOLrjaeLV ravra, kcu tov prj 'TreL0opevov 
T P L XV ( t )a l JL€V abLneiv, otl re yevvrjTaLS ovaiv rjp.LV ov 
TreiOeraL, kcu otl rpocpevai, kcll otl opoXoyrjaas rj prjv 
TT€L9ea0aL d ovre 7T€L0eraL ovre 7r€L0€L rjpas, e el prf 
KaX&S TL TTOLOVpeVy TTpOTL0eVT(jOV tfp&V, kcu OVK aypicos 
eTUTaTTOVToov ttolclv cl av KeXevcopev, aXXa ecpLevrcov 
bvetv 0drepa, rj TreC0eLV rjpas, rj iroLecv, tovtcov ovbt- 

T€pa 770161. 

XIV. Tclvtclls hr/ cpapev kcll ae, & 2c oKpares, rats 
alrLCLLS €ve£ea0a,L, a ehrep TTOLr/aeLS a eriLVoets, kcu oi>x 
rjKLara ’ A0rjva(cov ae, aAA’ ev tols paXLara b Et ovv 
eycb eirroLpL, did tl bij; tacos av pov bLKatcos Ka0a- 

aWotre rroi e\0a>v] Steph. tttj, and further on 0707 , which is in 
very few MSS. 

i^ovra rd <xvtov~\ Commonly 6%(op. Although this reading 
might be defended, it was right to change it on the authority of Bodl. 
Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1 . 3. 4. 6 . 7. Flor. a. b. d. f. h. i. Coisl. Par. 
BCDHS. Angel. Huetf 

ij pijv xeiOecrQai] So Coisl. Par. B C. Flor. a. b. c. f. i. and 
Ang. for the common reading rjplv nniO. In Bodl. above rjpiv is 
written rip, that is, I think r\ prjv. Buttmann conjectured that 
TrnatoBai ought to be read. 

iroiovpev, TrpoTiQkvTwv] Vat. Flor. d. ical 7rpoTiOevTtJv. But 
see note. 

dX\a t<pievTU)v] a<f>isvTO)v, Par. H. The form dvsTv is pre¬ 
served here by all the MSS. and old editt. except Vat. Flor. d. Huet. 

I 


86 


PLATO. 


tttolvto , c XeyovTes, otl ev tols paXLaTa * A0r)Vd((OV ey 0 ) 
avrols copoXoyriKoos rvyxavco Tavrrjv rrjv opoXoylav, 
cfoaLev yap &v otl ’X2 SooKpaTes, peyaXa r/plv tovtoov 
T€K prjpL& i(TTLV, OTL (TOL Kal rjpeLS TjpeaKOpeV Kal Tf 
noXLS’ ov yap av 7rore r<2z; aAA.coz> ’ Adr]vaCa>v anavTcov 
bia(f)€povT(tis d ev avrfj enebr/peLs, el prj aoL bLacfoe- 
povToos ijpeaKe, Kal ovt enl OeoopCav* nconoTe eK rijs 
noXeaos e£r}X6es, otl prj ana£ els ’laOpov, ovre aXXoae 
ovbapoae, el py noL aTpaTevaopevos / ovre aXXyv ano- 
bypCav enoLyaoo nconoTe, &snep ol aXXoL avOpconoi, 
ov6’ enL0.vp.La ae aXXrjs noXeoos ovb 1 aXXcov vopoov 
eXa(3ev elbevaL, s aXXa impels ctol LKavol ypev Kal r\ 
r/peTepa noXLS * ovtco acfoobpa rjpas fjpov, Kal copoXoyeLS 
KaO ’ ripas noXLTevecr0aL h Ta re aXXa Kal nalbas ev 
avTrj enoLrjo-oo, cos apeaKovays (tol tt}s noXecos • crt 
tolvvv ev avTrj Tjj bUy e£r}v otol (fovyrjs TLpyaaaOaL, 1 el 
efiovXov, Kal onep vvv aKovarjs Trjs noXeoos enLx^Lpels, 
TOTe eKovays noLrjaaL. av be rore pev eKaXXoonCCov 
a )? ovk ayavaKT&v, el beoL TedvavaL ae, aXX i fjpov, cos 
ecprjaOa, npo Tijs (pvyys davarov vvv be ovt eKelvovs 
to vs Xoyovs alayyveL, ovTe rjpcov tcov vopoov evTpeneL, 

XIV. oti prj airaZ, tig T ffOfiov] These words are wanting in 
Tub. Ven. b. Vind.6. 7. Flor. h. Huet. Par. D S. But they were 
read by Athenaeus, as Fischer rightly observed. In Bodl. they are 
written in the margin. 

cnrodripiav l7roir?<rw] This order is given in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. 
Tub. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. Flor. d. h. Huet. Editions have knoiriow 
cnrod. 

KaO’ ripag TroXiTtvsaOai] Stephens, against all the MSS. has 
given the conjectural reading TroXinvatoOai, which is approved of 
by Buttmann. See note. 

rw v vopov 6vrjO£7rce] Vind. 6. tov vopov, injudiciously. 


CRITO. 


87 


iinxeip&v biafpOeLpai, tt parrels re airep hv bovXos 
(pavXoraros ripa^eiev, cnrobLbpao-Keiv iirixeipcov rrapa 
ras (vv6r\Kas re Kal ras opoXoyias, Kad * hs r\pZv £v- 
veOov TroXireveo-Oai. np&rov pev ovv r\piv rovr avro 
airoKpivcu, el aXr^Oij Xeyopev, (paaKovres ae cbpoXoyrj- 
Kevai noXireveorOai KaO i rjpas ipy<j>, aAA* ov Aoyo>, 17 
ovk. aXr)0r}. Tt (pcopev tt pos ravra, & Kpiroov; aXXo 
tl rj opoXoyoopev ; KP. WvayKT), <o ^(oKpares. 2X2. 
*AXXo tl ovv hv (paiev k t) f vvOr]Kas ras irpos rjpas 
avrov s teat opoXoyias Trapa[3aiveis, ov\ inr avayKrjs 
opoXoyrio-as, ovbe aTrarrjOeCs, ovbe iv dAiya) yjpovu 
avayKacrOels piovXevcraaOai, aAA’ iv erecnv e(3bopri- 
Kovra, iv ots itpjv croi amivai, el pi] ripecrKopev repels 
prjbe biKaiai i<paCvovro aoi at bpoXoyiai eXvai. crv be 
ovre AaKebaipova irpoppov ovre Kprjrriv, as br) eK&cr- 

bovXoQ <}>av\6TaTOQ~\ 6 the article commonly put after 6ovXoq, is 
omitted in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Tub. Vind. 1.6. Flor. d. h. Huet. 
Par. D E S. 

Zw'eOov iroXiTtvtoQai] Here also Stephens, with Buttmann’s 
approbation, against almost all the MSS. corrected iro\iTtv<n<j9cu. 
fiiv after 7 rp Zrov, omitted in old editions, is inserted from Venet. b. 
Vat. Tub. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. Flor. d. h. Par. D S. 

&)po\oyr)K&vcu iroXiTtviaQai) Old editions have TroXiTtvatobai 
which, following Bekker, we have changed from Coisl. Ven. b. 
Vat. all the Vindobb. Flor. d. f. h. Zitt. Huet. Par. D S. 

*AWo ti ovv av 0ai£v] Stephens omitted n and av. Bas. 2. 
left out 6 lv only. The true reading is supplied by almost all the 
MSS. 

av 6k ovre Aa/c.] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Tub. Vind. 1. 4. 
Flor. a. c. d. f. h. Huet. Par. B C D E S. for the common reading 
o{, re. A little before the old editions except Bas. 2. iv olg ijv, 
which is corrected from Bodl. Vat. Ven. a. b. Tub., 7 Vindobb. 
and most others. 


88 


PLATO. 


rore evvofJLe'tcrOcu, 1 ovre akkrjv ovbepilav tcov *EA- 
krjvlbcov nokecov ovbe tcov fiapfiapLK&v™ aAA* ekarrco 
e£ avTrjs anebrjpLT]eras rj ol \cokol re Kal rvefokol Kal ol 
akkoi avdnrjpoL' ovtco <toi biaejoepovTcos tcov akkcov 
’AOrjvalcov rjpeaKev ?J 7roAts re Kal rjpieLS ol vopLOL orjkov 
otl’ n tlvl yap av nokis apeaKoi avev vopicov ; vvv be 
br) ovk e/xjuerets rots o)p.okoyr)p.evo is ; eav rjpXv ye 
nelOrj, 0 co ScoKpares’ Kal ov Karayekaaros ye ecret e/c 
rrjs nokecos e£ek0c6v. 

XV. SKoVet yap brj, ravra napa/3as Kal e^apcapTcov 
tl tovtcov tC ayaSov epyacre t eravTov, rj tovs enirq- 
belovs tovs aavTov • ort juer yap KivbvvevcroverC ye erov 
ol eniTijbeioi Kal avTol efoevyeiv Kal oreprjOfjvai Trjs 
nokecos, rj tt)V overlay anokeerai, cryebov tl brjkov 
avTos be npeorov p.ev eav els tcov eyyvrara Tiva no- 
keoov ekOys, ri Orj(3a£e rj M eyap6.be, — evvopiovvTai 

ovtie tuiv fiapfiapiicobv'] Commonly ovre, which is changed 
from Bodl. Ven. b. Tubing. Vind. 6. Huet. Par. D S. For the 
common reading fiapfidpiov, Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. 
Flor. d. h. Huet. Par. S. with Eusebius give (3ap/3apiKwv . In 
Vat. Flor. d. and Vind. 2. 'EWrjviiciov also is read, with Butt- 
mann’s approbation. 

Kal vpelg ol vopoi dijXov ort] Vind. 4. 7. Flor. h. Huet. 
Par. D S. Kal ol vopoi rjpelg d. 

ovk Ipptvelg rolg Bekker corrected Ippevelg, which is 

added by another hand in Bodl. j whereas the other MSS. have 
Ipplvug. But the future tense is required by the next words : Idv 
tip.lv ye TreiOy, 2., with which it is plain that Ippevelg is to 
be understood. Stephens inserted it before lav, writing Ippevelg 
de, lav k. t. X. 

XV. eZapapruv n tovtmv'] l%apapTavwv, Bodl. Ven. b. Tub. 
Vind. 7. Flor. h. Huet. Par. DS. In Ven. b., the true reading 
is added in the margin. 

V Mlyapdde] Commonly M eydpade. The former is found in 


CRITO. 


89 


yap ap,(f)6T€paL — 7 roAe/uttos 7/fets, co 2coKpares, rfj rov- 
rcov 7roAtreta, a /cat oaonrep Krjbovrai t£>v avT(ov tto- 
Aecoz/, VTro(3\4yjfovTaC ere bcacf)0opea riyovpievoL rcor 
vopL(DVy Kal /3e/3atcocrets rots $t/caorats b rTjz; §o£ai>, cosre 
boKeiv 6p9u> s r7)y StK^z/ StKaaar osrts yap v6p.o)v bia- 
<pOopevs eart, a(f)6bpa 7rov bogeiev av vecov ye Kat 
avor\Tu>v av0p(OTTcov bia<fi0op€vs elvai. irorcpov ovv 
(f)€v^€L rds re €vvop,ovpLtvas 7roAets Kat rcoi> avbp&v 
tovs KoapucdTarovs ; c Kat rooro ttolovvtl apa a£i6v d 
(rot £fjv lorat; 77 7rA77<nc£crets rovrots Kat avaioyyv- 
TT^crets StaAeyojuez/os—rtms Aoyovs, co 2coKpares ; 77 
ovsirep iv0d.be, cos 77 aperrj Kat 77 biKaiocrvvr) 'nXeCcrrov 
cl£lov rots av0p(OTTOLS Kat ra vopup.a Kal ot z/o/xot ; Kat 
ovk otet aayj)iAOV av t£areicr0at e ro rod SooKpdrovs 
7rpayp,a ; oUa-0aC ye XT 31 ?* ’AAA’ ck tovto)v t<jov 
TOTTOiv airapeis, ify'fets ets ©erraA^ay 7 rapa rovs 
£evovs tovs KpCraivos' €K€ t yap 67 ) 7rAetcrr77 arafta Kat 
aKoXacrCa/ Kal tacos &v ybi(o s croo aKovoiev cos yeAotcos 
ck rov be(rpL(OT7]pCov airebCbpacrKes, <TKevr\v re rtra 


Coisl. Vind. 2. Huet. Par. D S. And we write also olKovde, vro- 
X t/xovde, k. r. X. 

a%Lov (rot Zrjv tffreu ;] So Bodl. Ven. b. Tub. Vind. 7. Flor. h. 
Huet. Par. DS. for the common reading tore <roi In others 

<rot €<mv, which confirms the reading of the text. 

rivac Xoyooe] So Ven. b. Huet. Par. D S. The common 
reading was rivag. 

aaxrjpov av <pavel<rdai] av is added from Vat. Ven. b. Huet. 
Par. D S. Vind. 1. 6. 7. Flor. d. h. 

tovtiov ruiv tottcjv'] So Bodl. Vat. Ven. b. Tub. Flor. d. h. 
Huet. Par. D S. for the common reading r. r. 7 toKscjv. which in 
Ven. b. is written in the margin. 

tovq Zevovg rovg Kptrwvog] So Ven. b. Vind. 4. Tub. for 
the common reading tov Kp. 

(fKtvrjv t& tivo] Tt is added from Bodl. Vat. Ven. !&, a. b. 

i 3 


90 


PLATO. 


7 TepiOepLevos, s rj bi(f>6epav Aa/ SdiV, rj aAAa ola brj elut- 
6acnv Zv(TK€Va(€(T0CLLOL aTTOblbpaCTKOVTeS, Kal TO OyfjpLCL h 
to cravrov jueraAAa^as'. on Se yepcov avrjp apuKpov 
Xpovov T(S (3i(p Xolkov ovtos, o>s to elKos, eToXpLrjaas 
ovtcq yXlcrxpcos 1 emOvpelv (jjv, vopovs tovs pceyCcrTOVs 
Trapafias, ovbels oy epei ; Lam, av paf] Ttva XvTrfjs' el 
Se /ut?7, k aKovcrei, co SooKpaTes, rroWa Kal ava^ia 
cravTov. virepyopievos brj fiicoaeL TtavTas avOptiorrovs 
Kal bovXevoiv • 1 tl ttolcov ri eveoyovptevos iv 0erraA£a, 
mirep eTTL beZrrvov aTrobebrjpLrjKibs els OeiTaXlav ; Xoyoi 
6e eneZvoi ol rrepl biKaioavvrjs T€ Kal tt}s aXXrjs aperijs 
ttov rjpuv ZaovTat ; ’AAAa brj tG>v 7 raCb(ov eveKa (3ov- 
Aet m tfjv, Xva avTovs eKdpe\jrps Kal 7raibevaps; tC baC; 
els OeTTaXlav avTovs ayaytov 6pe\\reLS re Kal 7rai- 
bevcreLs, £evovs TroLrjaas, iva Kal tovto ctov airoXav- 
aaaiv ; n rj tovto piev ov, avTOv° be TpecfyopievoL aov 
(tivTos (3e\Tiov OpeifcovTai Kal TraibevaovTai, perj £v- 
vovtos crov avToZs ; ol yap eiriTribeioi ol aol empLe- 
fojcrovTai avTcov. 7 TOTepov eav els 0erraAtaz; p airobT]- 

Tub. Vind. 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. Flor. a. b. c. d. f. h. i. Par. and others. 
Bodl. Huet. Par. D S. Tub. Flor. h. KaraXXd^ag, but the margin 
of Bodl. ptTaXXaZag. 

ovrw yXiaxpiog] Bodl. Ven. b. Tub. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. Flor. h. 
Huet. Par. D S. ovriog aiaxp&g. The better reading has been 
preserved by Bodl. in the margin. 

V7 repxopevog of/ (3idxrti —] Commonly irdvrag avQptljirovg 
(3nb<ry, which is changed from Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Huet. Par. D S. 
Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. Tub. Further on Vat. Flor. d. dovXtv<av Kai ri 
TTOi&v. Vind. 6. for tv OerraXlg. has tig QtrraXlav, the same 
words being omitted after a-rrodtdripyKdjg. See note. 

Trtpl ducaioTvvtjg re] re is added from Bodl. Coisl. Vat. Ven.b. 
Tub. Vind. 1. 4. 6. 7. Flor. d. h. Huet. Par. D S. It was wanting 
in the common editions. 

iroTtpov lav tig 0frr.} Editt. have 7roTtpov lav ptv tig 0. 


CRITO. 


91 


^<rr\9, empteAT/o-otTar zav Se ets * Albov airob^piriaps , 
ovyl iTTi^X'qtrovTai ; eforep ye n ocptXos avrcov eort 
T&v croi (paaKovrcov GTTiTribeCow eivar oiecrOaC ye XPV' 

XVI. ’AAV co UcoKpares, Tret 0o'ptez>os fjp. iv rots crots 
rpo(f)€vcri ptrjre iraibas irepi nXetovos ttoiov prjTe to (t}v 
\xr]Te aAAo fjirjbev rrrpo rod biKatov ,® tm ets “Albov eA- 

exps raora tt&vtci aTToXo-yr/o-ao-dai rots eKet ap- 
yovcnv ovre yap ivddib€ h croi (paiverai ravra Trparrovn c 
apeivov etmt d ov6e binaiorepov oi)b% ocritorepov, ovbe 
#AA<o rcoz; crcoy ovbtvi, ovrc eKetcre afpiKopevto apeivov 
lorat. aAAa w pteu e pdtKppteVos a7ret, eai> amps, 
ovx v(f) fjpicov t&v vopuov aAA’ -utt’ az>0pcomozr ecu' Se 
efe'A0ps ovrcos aioyjxus avrabiKricras re Kat avriKaKOVp- 
ypaas, ras cravrov optoAoytas re Kat £vv6r\Ka s ras r^pos 
pptas 7rapa(3as Kat KaKa epyao-apteros rovrov s, oi)s 
TfKMTTa eSet, aavrov re Kat <pC\ovs Kat irarpCba Kal 
rjpias, pptets re aoi yaAt'navovp.zv fcom, Kat eKet ot 
ppte'repot abeXcpol ot ez> * Albov vopoi ovk evpzvc os ae 
virobe^ovrai, etSo'res, ort Kat pptas errex^pp^as aito- 
\icrai to (tvv ptepos. aAAa pip o-e TteCcrrj Kptrcoz; Troie'iv 
h Ae'yet piaXXov rj pptets. 

XVII. Taora, co </uAe eratpe KpCrcov, cv icrOi, ort 
eya> Sokco aKOveiv* cosrrep ot Kopv/3ai>rtcorres rcoy 
avAcoy boKovaiv anovtiv, Kat er eptot atfrp p PXP rov- 


But pev is correctly omitted in Bodl. Ven. b. Vat. Tub. Vind. 1. 
4. 6. Flor. d. h. Huet. Par. D S. 

u’e “Aidov d 7 rodtjprj<Ty£] Vind. 3. omits «7r odrjpriayg. But in 
this opposition of clauses the repetition of the same word is not 
inelegant. A comma was commonly put after hnpt\r](T0VTai, and a 
note of interrogation after kTnTydt'uav tlvai which, following Butt- 
mann, we have changed. 

XVI. ravra tt dvra aTroXoy.] Bodl. Tub. ndvra ravra . 


92 


PLATO. 


ra )v t<x>v \6ycov ftopcfiet kcll Troiei per] bvvaadai t<Zv 
a\\a>i> aKoveiV' a\\a tcrOi, ocra ye ra vvv epcol bo - 
Kovvra, eav tl Xeyrjs Tiapa Tavra, b ix6,tt)v epeis. opccos 
pievTo l el tl oUl TtXeov TTOLr/oreLV, A eye. KP. ’AAA’, 
co ScoKpares ovk ex& A eyeLV. 2X2. V E a tolwv, co 
KpLTcov, kcu 7rpaTT(»pL€V TcivTTj, eTreLbrj Tavry 6 deos 
vcf)r)ye'LTaL. 


XVII. tS)v aWcov aicoveiv ] Tub. omits tCjv. 


NOTES. 






NOTES 


ON THE 

APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


Chap. I. a & avdpeg ’AQrjvcuoi ] Some MSS. omit ’AQrjvaHot. He 
might also have said avdpeg ducaarai. But Socrates seems to 
have had a good reason for addressing his judges <b avdpeg ’AQr)- 
vaioi. For ’AQijvaiog not only signifies an Athenian citizen, but 
also one who is worthy of the citizenship of Athens. In Chap. 
XVII., about the middle, he says: "On, a> apiare avdp&v, ’AOrj- 
vaiog wv, 7ro\ca >g rijg peyiarqg icai evdoKipuiraryg eig croQiav 
(cat hxvv, k. r. X. Compare Cicero de Offic. I. 1. Epist. ad Divv. 
XV. 19., where he opposes one bom at Athens to rustics. The words 
'0 n pep vpeig 'ireirovQare k. t . X. are to be thus understood: 
“How your minds are affected by my accusers;” or, “How the 
oration of my accusers has affected your minds.” Of the preposition 
viro joined with a verb neuter, see Matth. Gr. §. 496. 3., and on 
the similar use of the preposition ab in Latin, Heusinger ad Cic. 
de Offic. I. 2. 12. Goerenz. ad Academ. I. 11. 

b eyw d’ ovv Kai avrog — ine\aQ6prjv~\ I have nearly forgotten 
myself —that is, been brought to think that I am not the man that 
I really am ; which is said ironically. The same expression is used 
in Phasdr. p. 228. A. ei eytb <f>aidpov ciyvoG), /cat epavrov hn~ 
\s\ri<Tpai. Menexen. p. 235. C. poyig avapipvrjaicopai epavrov . 
v-jt’ avriov is “in consequence of their oration,” as the Greeks say 
viro <pofiov, Vico <pikiag, viro piaovg, vrco tyOpag, etc. 

c <I>s £7rof eiireiv] that is, “I should almost say.” It refers to 
ovdev eiprjKamv. Compare cc. VII. and VIII. 

d avrwv ev IQavpaaa ] On the genitive avr&v, see Matth. Gr. 
$.317. The meaning is “ one thing in those persons;” for avribv is 
masculine. ru>v ttoAAwv also depends on ev. 

9 Xpw vpag evA., pi) — e%a7rart]Qf/re] He indicates that this 
attack of his accusers is unfounded, and, therefore, he uses the im¬ 
perfect indicative. Compare Matthiae Gr. §.510. 
f hteidav prjd* birugnovv] This is added to illustrate the word 



96 


NOTES ON THE 


spyip. The word oTciogriovv is said by Phavorinus and Thom. 
Mag. to have been used by the Attics for birwgovv. oiroigovv is, 
however, sometimes used by Attic writers. See Ducker ad Thucyd. 
VII. 49. The signification of prjS’ ottwqtiovv is not even a very 
little, in no sense, in no degree. So ovb’ birwgTiovv, Chap. XIV. 
Xenoph. (Econ. XIII. 12. Cyrop. VIII. 4,9. Memorab. I. 6, 11. 
and elsewhere. A little further on, the student will observe the 
formula si py apa , which signifies unless perhaps. 

e ov icard tovtovq slvai pyroop'] Socrates in these words declares 
that he is of the same opinion with his accusers concerning the duty 
of an orator, namely, that he should speak the truth; but that he 
does not act like them by speaking falsely. Therefore the meaning 
of ov Kara tovtovq slvai prjrwp is : that I am an orator unlike 
them, since I speak truth, not falsehood. 

h ?; ti y ovbsv dXrjOsg sipyKaaiv ] That is, have said scarcely! 
anything true ; have said little or nothing true. See Valckenaer ad 
Herodot. III. 149. who compares Xenoph. Cyrop. VII. 5, 45. rou-1 
rwv rdv 'jrspisffTTjKOTcov rj rivet rj ovbsva olSa. A21ian de Nat.] 
Anim. VI. 50. laaaiv Alyvirriov y tiq y ovdsig. VII. 8. 9av-\ 
puZ,si Tig y ovdsig. See Matth. Gr. §. 487. 8. ttcloclv ryv aXrM 
Quav has been correctly rendered by Fischer in Latin omnem rem. \ 

* KSKaWitTnrjpkvovQ ye \6yovg —] KaWierreXv, on which word^ 
see Valckenaer Diatrib. p. 291., is to speak gracefully and ele¬ 
gantly. Therefore Xoyoi KSKaWiem]pivot prjpacri ts ical ovopaai 
are speeches composed both of graceful sentences and elegant words. 
For pripara and ovopara differ in this, that the latter are words, 
but the former, sentiments expressed by words. See Theaetet. 190. E. 
and there, Heindorf. p. 449. Moreover, Socrates mentions Xoyovg \ 
KfKoapypsvovg, that is, speeches ornamented with tropes, figures. See. 
— eUy, extemporaneously. — toXq kiriTvxovmv ovopaen, that is, 
without any set selection of words. For ra siriTv\bvTa bvbpara 
are not common and trite words, as Fischer interprets, but words 
which, as it were, offer themselves of their own accord. 

k diKcua slvai & Xs'yw] That is, that I can do this rightly, 
namely, speak without ornament or premeditation. —Tyds ry yXitclq., 
that is, it would not become an old man, such as I am. The ab¬ 
stract for the concrete, which also appears from the addition of bigirsp 
pstpaKup. Socrates was 70 years of age when he was publicly ac¬ 
cused. See further on in this Chap. — 7tXclttsiv Xoyovg is to speak 
in a rhetorical manner; see Ernesti Lexicon Techn. Grac. Rhetor, 
p. 267 sq., where the words tcXcktiq and 7 rXdapa are explained. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


97 


Demosth. de Coron. p. 268. ed. R. ri Xoyovg nXaTTtig ;—For tig 
vfiag tigitvai might have been put tig rb biKaarppiov tigitvai. 

1 Kai napitfiai] Timaeus Glos. Platon, p. 207. napitfiai • 7r a- 
paiTovfiai : at which place Ruhnkenius says: “ The reason of this 
construction depends on the nature of the middle voice. As 'irjfu 
and tcpitj/xi is I send, "itpai and ityitpai is I wish to be sent to me, 
that is, 1 desire, I seek ; so irapiijfii I permit, napitpai I wish to 
be permitted to me, that is, I pray, I entreat .” 

m Kai tv ayopy ini tCjv rpant^wv] The words Kai iv ayopq, 
ini rwv rpant^wv correspond to those following Kai aXXoQi . The 
reading Kai iv ayopq. Kai ini twv rpantZubv was not correct, be¬ 
cause al rpant^ai were in the market place. See Salmatius de 
Usur. p. 510. The words ini tu>v rpantZ&v are added for the 
purpose of explanation. So in Hippias min. p. 368. B. iv ayopq, 
ini raig rpane£aig. We are here to understand the tables of the 
bankers, which elsewhere, as in Demosthen. Vol. II. p. 470. p. 472. 
p. 946. Isocrat. p. 449. p. 450. p. 704. ed. Reisk. are called simply 
ai rpant^ai ; and thence the bankers are called ol Tpant&rai. 

n Kai aXXoQi ] That is, in the shops and gymnasia. Compare 
Aristid. Orat. Platon. II. p. 223. Vol. II. ed. Ieb. on 7 r\£tara 
’AQyvaiwv ini rwv TpantZ&v Kai t&v ipyaarypiiov ditXsytTO. 

° p,i]Tt 9opv(3tiv~\ The verb Oopvfltiv is said of bustle and con¬ 
fusion of every kind, as when the judges murmur to one another, and 
speak loud enough to be heard. M/) 9opvj3tirt is an established 
formula of the orators, when they are about to say any thing which 
may be displeasing to their auditors. See Chap. V. in two places. 

p irtj ytyovwg trXtiio tfiboprjKovra. There is no necessity that 
fi should be added after nXtiu). See Matth. Gr. §. 455. 4. Serranus 
translates “ more than sixty years old s0 *h at he appears to have 
read nXtiio t%r]Kovra. 

q Ztvwg c'xw] On this use of the genitive see Matth. §. 337.— y 
ivQadt XtZig, style of speaking customary in courts of justice. 

r wgntp ovv av, ti —] So Gorg. p. 447. E. p. 451. A. Protag. 
p. 311. B. In these passages av must not be referred to the 
opening, but to the conclusion of the proposition. It is, however, 
rightly repeated at the conclusion. In such passages the reader is 
prepared in the beginning of a sentence pronounced with some em¬ 
phasis, for what the construction is to be, so that, a complete clause 
being interposed, av is repeated anew. This passage is, therefore, 
to be understood, as if it were written: wgntp ovv av Zvvtyi- 
yvwOKtrt drjnov poi, ti Tip ovti Ztvog i. wv. 

K 


98 


NOTES ON THE 


8 iv tKt'ivy ry tptovy—trtOpdppyv ] That is, the vernacular lan¬ 
guage, which differed from the style of speaking customary in courts 
of justice, rovro biKaiov is the same as rovro tog diicaiov r t. 
See Matthiae Gr. §. 470. There are many proofs that strangers were 
allowed to plead their own causes in the courts of justice. In the 
same manner in C. 5. ravri poi 6 oksZ diKcua Xeytiv 6 Xeywv. 

1 avry apery] If the article is preserved, the words are to be 
thus connected : avry y apery (that is, that he see whether the 
truth be spoken or not) ducaarov eanv. If the article is omitted : 
for this is the virtue of a judge. For when the pronoun is the 
subject, and the substantive the predicate, the article is omitted. 

II. a diicaioQ el/u cnroXoyyaacQai ] On this construction see 
Matth. §. 296. A little further the construction is rrpbg ra rrputra 
Karyyopypeva pov \pevdy. 

b Kai 7 raXai iroXXa ydy try ] The words tt oXXa ery are 
added for the purpose of determining more precisely the meaning of 
7raXai ; since rrdXai is not always used of time long since past, but 
often also of a short space of time, of years, months, days, &c. 
The Latin dudum and jamdudum are used in the same manner. 
The words are to be thus connected : Kai rraXai 7ro\\a ydy try 
Xkyovreg Kai ovbtv aXyQeg Xeyovreg , the sense being: For there 
have been many accusers of me before you, who, though they have 
accused me for some time,—for many years now,'—have not yet brought 
forward anything true. 

c y rovg ap<pi "A vvrov] That is, Anytus and bis associates, 
Meletus and Lycon. See Matth. §. 272. Anytus, in particular, 
is mentioned because he was the most formidable enemy of Socrates ; 
for he had acquired great popularity by his conduct during the time 
of the Thirty Tyrants. See Xenoph. Ilellen. II. 3, 42. 

d aXX’ tKt’ivoi beivore pot—] Socrates appears to refer to the ac¬ 
cusations which Aristophanes and the other comic poets, as Eu- 
polis, &c., had brought against him. 

e ra re perewpa typovnaryg k. r. X.] <ppovri(rryg having the 
same signification as <ppovri^wv, takes an accusative. On this ac¬ 
cusation, see Aristoph. Nubb. v. 100. v. 189 foil. v. 359. Xenoph. 
Sympos. VI. 7. Compare Ruhnken. ad Mem. I. 2, 31. Socrates 
appears, in his youth, to have devoted considerable attention to phy¬ 
sical studies; as he informs us himself in the Phaedo p. 97 foil. 
Compare Xenoph. Memorab. IV. 7. 

{ Kai rbv yrrw Xoyov Kpeirru) tt oiiov] See Aristoph. Nubb. 
v. 99 foil. Cicero in Brutus, c. 8. docere, quemadmodum causa in- 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


99 


ferior dicendo fieri superior possit. Gell. N. A. V. c. 3. docere, 
quanam verborum industria causa infirmior fiat fortior. 

g ravryv rr/v (pypyv KaTaffKeddffavreg'] Heindorf thought 
that it ought to be written: oi ravrrjv t. <j>. k. But there is no 
need of the article, since the participle expresses the reason why 
that class of accusers was most dangerous to Socrates. “ Those 
persons,” he says, “because they have spread abroad that report, 
are formidable and dangerous accusers.” 

h ovdk 9eovg vofxi&iv] That is, not even believe that there are gods. 

1 ev y civ paXtara hriiTTEvaars] Wolf translates this: they said 
these things to you when you were at the age most capable of believing. 

k aTExvubg epypr/v Karyy.~\ kpypt] (dbcy) is a cause heard in 
the absence of the accused, who fails to appear in court. See He- 
sych. and Phavorin. under this word. The defendant was then said 
tig ryv Kvpiav ovi : 6<p9yvai or py diravryaai. Therefore iprjpyv 
Kartjyopeiv is to accuse an absent defendant , when he has forfeited 
his recognisance. See Petitus ad Legg. Attic, p. 317. 

1 <J)96v(p Kai dtafioXy xpwftta'oi] That is, <J>9ovovvTtg Kai dia- 
j,SaWovreg . A little further follows oi Se, as if oi p'tv had been 
inserted after o<rot 

m diropioTarol fieri] The most impracticable, that is, such as 
cannot be convinced. 

n avafiifiaGa<j9ai — svrav9oi ] ava(3i[$dZeiv is to order any one 
to ascend, to produce any one, that is, on account of another, or by the 
order of another, or for the advantage of another. Therefore ava/3i- 
(3a&(r9(u is to do the same thing on one's own account, and for one’s 
own purpose. It is,‘therefore, obvious, why Plato used the middle 
voice. In the following words, GKiapaxtlv curoXoyovpevov are in 
immediate connection, so that re is correctly subjoined to them ; and 
the corresponding clause is iAiyxetv pydevog cnroKpivopkvov. In 
exactly the same manner, Rep. V. p. 470. C. TroXtpEiv pa\op'Evovg 
re <pi)< 7 optv Kai noXepiovg (pvou ilvai . 

° dZubaare ovv kcu vpeig ] That is, do you also then consider. 
The word aZiovv has been ably illustrated by Buttmann, Demosth. 
Or. Midian. p. 165. 

p E lev. cnroXoyrjTEOV by] The Attics use the word eTev to sig¬ 
nify that they do not wish to say more on what has preceded, but to 
pass to other things. Sometimes also, it simply indicates a tran¬ 
sition, as in Chap. III. 

*i i£eXe<j9ai ryv biafioXyv] That is, to remove from your minds 
the bad opinion concerning me, as C. X. For biafioXy means bad 


> > 

.) ) > 

> ) 

L.ofC. 


100 


NOTES ON THE 


opinion, suspicion, produced by false accusations. Hesychius : Aia- 
fioXy' viroTTrsvaiQ r) vnoXry^’ig. But since Socrates, by removing 
this ill opinion of the judges concerning him, consulted his own 
advantage, and did himself a service, it is easy to see why Plato 
wrote t^tXetrQat not iZtXelv. In the words rctvrrjv tv ovrwg dXiyty 
Xpovty is to be observed the emphasis of the sentence, which is partly 
in the pronoun ravryv, partly in the opposition of the words tv 
7 roXX(p XP° V V an( l ovrtag oXiyty xpovty. Compare C. X. 

r tovto ovto) ysvt<r9ai] The words ovrw ytvtaOai are more 
accurately defined by the following words: icai TrXtovri fit Troirjtrai 
drroXoyovfitvov, that I might do something more, that is, to cause 
you to throio aside your bad opinion of me and conceive a good one. On 
the formula afitivov itrnv, see observations on Crito, C. XVI., 
note ( d ). ' 

III. a MsX^rdf fit tpyaxpctro rrjv ypaeftyv ravrrjv] See Eu- 
thyphro, p. 5. where is found ypatyyv ere rig, cog toiKt, ytypairrat. 
For it is correct to say ypd<pt<r9ai ypa(f>r]v : also to say ypatytaQai 
rivet: and hence, by the union of both constructions, has arisen 
ypatptcQcu ypatpyv nva. 

b Cjgirtp ovv Kctryyopwv—avrwv ] The sense is: their accu¬ 
sation, as the information of accusers properly so called, ought to be 
recited. A vrwpooia is properly the oath, either of the plaintiff, 
when he swears that he brings the accusation for just causes and 
without calumny ; or of the accused, when he swears that he is in¬ 
nocent. Further, this term is applied to the written declaration of 
the accusation, which is given in to the judge by the plaintiff: 
in which signification it is also found in C. XI. 

c 7 rtptepydZtrai] rTtpitpya^ttrOai is properly to treat any sub¬ 
ject minutely, and hence to bestow too much attention on any thing. 
Hence it signifies, as in this passage, to attend to those things which 
do not in any way belong to you; to attend to frivolous, vain, and 
useless things. 

d tv ry ’Apitrroipdvovg KioptySlq] “ The Clouds” of Aris¬ 
tophanes was acted b. c. 423 ; but was unsuccessful notwithstanding 
its great merit as a work of art. The poet not only failed in ob¬ 
taining the first prize, but was placed below Ameipsias as well as 
Cratinus. He appears to have brought it forward again in the fol¬ 
lowing year, with some alterations; but this fact has been disputed 
by many critics. 

e ovdkv ovrt fisya ovrt upiKpov ] This is a proverbial saying. 
See Herm. ad Viger. p. 720. 78. Compare C. VI. and XIII. R e - 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


J01 


mark the preposition -rrepl removed a good distance from its noun. 
The word kxaieiv is constructed either with a simple genitive or 
with the preposition tt epl and a genitive. Compare Heindorf ad 
Hippiam maj. p. 289. £. 

f Kal ovx <*>g anpaZitiv — ] The words are to be taken ironically 
in this sense : I do not despise and reject that knowledge of celestial 
things and of the art, by aid of which the worse cause may be made 
the better: and may I never be accused by Meletus of such great in¬ 
justice. The form diKijv <pevyeiv is to be accused, to be prosecuted, 
and is opposed to the word diwKtiv which signifies to accuse. But 
since Qevytiv is the same as diojictaQcu it is easy to see why it should 
be translated as a passive. The words dXXa yap Ipoi t .—pereori 
are to be interpreted : a.XX’ eKelvo ovx °'vto)q e%et* ov yap epoi tov- 
tiov ovdev peTEGTi. Compare Herm. ad Viger. p. 811. 

8 Kai a£iu> vpag —] that is, I wish or request that you yourselves 
would explain to one another. 

h Kai Ik TovToiv yvuxreaQe'] Namely, ek tov SiddaKsiv te Kal 
$pdZ,eiv k. t. X. 

IV. a ‘AWa yap ovre tovtojv ovdev egtiv ovSe y —] He pro¬ 
ceeds to another accusation made against him by his adversaries, 
that he gave instruction and exacted money from his pupils. See 
Aristoph. Nub. v. 98. ov8e ye is properly inserted after ovre, since 
the following clause is emphatic. There is, therefore, no necessity 
to read, with Fischer, a\\d yap ovde tovtwv, nor with Bekker, ov 
re y el tlvoq k. t. X. 

b Kai xp*ipu.Ta TrpaTTopai ] Is the same as pucrObv rrjg <rvv- 
ovaiag TrpuTTeaQai in Xenoph. Mem. I. 2, 60., in which passage 
Xenophon bears witness that Socrates never received any remu¬ 
neration from his pupils. 

c hrei Kal rovro ye poi —] It would not have been necessary to 
remark that this is said in order to stigmatise and ridicule the avarice 
of the Sophists; if there had not been some persons who have sup¬ 
posed that it was said seriously. 

d el Tig olog t ely'] On this construction, Matth. §. 524. Obs. 3. 
Gorgias, (b. c. 459.) a disciple of Empedocles and preceptor of 
Isocrates, was a native of Leontini, a town in Sicily. He did 
much to raise the study of rhetoric by his discoveries; according to 
Suidas, he first reduced it into the form of a science. He was so 
much distinguished by his eloquence in extemporaneous speaking, 
that he received great honours from all Greece, but particularly from 
Athens, where he resided for many years. He is said, after the 

K 3 


102 


NOTES ON THE 


example of Protagoras, to have exacted a hundred minae from each 
of his pupils. See Diog. Laert. 9. 52. Cic. de Orat. I. 22. III. 32. 
Brut. 8. de Fin. II. 1. Paus. VI. 17. Philostr. I. 1. Vit. Sophist, 
p. 487. ed. Morell. Dorvilli Sic. c. 9. p. 169., and especially the 
dialogue of Plato, inscribed Gorgias. Prodicus (b. c. 435.) was a na¬ 
tive of Ceos, one of the Cyclades. He bestowed much labour on 
distinguishing and explaining the signification of words. Hippias was 
a native of Elis, a city in the Peloponnesus ; Cicero has given some 
particulars concerning him in the De Orat. III. c. 32. and Brut. c. 8. 
Compare also Plato’s dialogue inscribed with the name of Hippias. 

e tovtovq TriiOovai ] These words afford a remarkable instance 
of avaicoXovQia. For as olog r iffriv goes before, an infinitive 
ought now to follow. But Trsi9ov<n is placed as if olog r ktrriv 
did not go before. ZweZvai and Zwovoia refer to learning and 
instruction, as is frequently the case: whence disciples are constantly 
called oi £ vvovrsg. 

f avrjp tan Udpiog ] Namely, Evenus, of the Isle of Paros. 
The subsequent words, ov kyw yaOoprjv sTridrifiovvTa, are to be 
understood thus : whom I once understood to be staying in our city. 
Socrates means that he had not seen Evenus himself, but had heard 
from Callias what he is about to say of him. 

s bg tstsXsks 7r\.j That is, who has paid more money to the 
Sophists than all among us who study philosophy. The common 
reading TersXkicei was bad, being altogether opposed to the con¬ 
struction of the sentence. 

h K aXXly, Tip 'ImroviKov ] The riches of Callias were so great, 
that he was called, according to Plutarch, Vol. I. p. 165., simply 
6 7r Xovaiog. It is evident from many passages that the Sophists 
were greatly enriched by him, as Protagor. p. 479. ed. Heind. p. 
314. B.C. Hipp. Mai. p. 218. B. Xenoph. Sympos. 1. 5. An 
account of this wealthy family is given in Bceckh’s * Public Economy 
of Athens/ vol. II. p. 242. foil. ( Engl . Trans.) 

1 pia9waaa9ai] pua9ovv to let or hire to another, pua9ova9ai to 
procure services for hire, to purchase. 

k ttbvts juvwv] An Attic mina consisted of 100 Attic drachma, 
see Pollux, IX. 59. 86. Evenus, therefore, demanded a very 
small remuneration for his wisdom, since it is recorded that Pro¬ 
tagoras, Gorgias, and others, received 100 mina. 

1 si wg dXrj9wg tx £ 0 Concerning the construction, see Matth. 
§. 529. 3. The words /cat ovriog tMxeXvbg seem to have reference to 
the moderate price tCjv ttsvts pvwv. For ippeXeg is said of any 




APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


103 


thing which does not depart from a proper medium. It is a me¬ 
taphor taken from musicians who keep the prescribed measure and 
rhythm of the song. There is great elegance in these words , for if 
Socrates had said ovtwq evTeX&g, so cheaply, he would have too 
openly laughed at Evenus and Callias. 

ra aXX’ ov ydp e7n'<7ra/tai] That is, aXX' ov dvvapai KaXXv- 
vs<r9ai Kal dfipvveoOav ov yap err'icrrapai. 

V. a ov y dp dyrrov <rov ye ovdsv~\ Compare C. XXXII. ov 
firjTrov tovtov ye k'v£«ra ot licet diroKTeivovai. 

b ovSev twv aXXiov 7repiTr6repov ] That is, doing nothing out 
of the common way, A little further hretra is introduced after the 
participle, a usage of frequent occurrence, on which, see Heindorf. 
ad Gorg. p. 37. ad Phaedon. p. 115. Herm. ad Viger. p. 772. 
Buttm. Gr. Gr. §. 131. not. 6. and §. 136. The following words 
are to be explained: that report concerning you would not, I think, 
have arisen, unless you had acted differently from other men ; so that 
it might be said at full length, Xoy og y'ey over, o£ ovk av eyevero, 
ft py ri e7rparreg. 

c rrepi (tov avTO<T\e^id^wpev~\ avroaxeSia^eiv, properly said 
of those who say or do any thing suddenly and on the impulse of the 
moment, is here applied to judges who form a hasty judgment. 

A TreirolyKe to re ovopa i cal rrjv diaj3o\rjv ] to ovopa refers to 
the fame of Socrates for wisdom, as is said a little further on, tovto 
to ovopa eaxyKa : and y dia(3o\)j refers to the calumnies and 
accusations of his adversaries. Muretus Varr. Lectt. VII. 16. has 
compared the form rroielv ovopa with the Latin * famam conficere.’ 

e ev pevToi lore, 7T aaav —lpu>] Crito, C. XVII. ’AXXd l<tQi, 
ocra ys ra vvv epoi doKOvvra, eav rt Xeyyg rrapa ravra, paryv 
epelg. Apol. C. XVII. ravra yap tceXevet — ei> itrre. 

{ pei£(o riva y icar dvOporrov^ That is, may have a greater 
wisdom than falls to the lot of man. Compare Matth. Gr. Gr. 
§. 449. The words y ovk f%o>, tL Xeyw are said ironically : the 
Sophists have either divine wisdom, or none. There is, therefore, no 
occasion for Forster's correction rjv ovk e%w o rt Xlyw. 

8 errl diafloXy ry spy Xeyei] That is, for the purpose of calum¬ 
niating me. For «7rt indicates design. Compare Matth. Gr. §. 585. 
For this use of the possessive pronoun instead of the personal, com¬ 
pare Homer. Odyss. XI. 202. aog rroOog. Iliad XIX. v. 320. v. 
336. ipyv ayyeXiyv, i. e. 7repi epov. Sophocl. (Ed. T. 969. r<p 
ep$ 7 ro9(p. Plat. Gorg. p. 476. evvoiq, ry ay. See Matth. §. 466. 
Sallust Jug. c. 14. Vos in mea injuria despecti estis. And likewise 


104 


NOTES ON THE 


LiviusII. 1. has used regium metum for metu regis j and III. 16. 
terrorem servilem for terrore servorum. 

h p'eya Xiyeiv] That is, to say something to be wondered at, 

* dfciox/ocwv] Which is properly said of one who is solvent, and, 
therefore, worthy to have money intrusted to him. In the same 
manner locuples in Latin is used of a witness worthy of credit. He- 
sych.: d^ioxptwg, d^iomaTog, Suid.: d£idxp£G>s* ikcivoq, £x*Y" 
yvog, aZioiriffTOQ. 

k rrjg yap eprjg —/cat oia] That is, rrape^opai yap vplv rov 
Qeov rov ev AeXtyoTg pdprvpa ryg ipyg aotyiag, ei dr) rig eanv, 
Kai o'ia eariv. 

1 Xaipecputvra yap—] Chaerephon’s character is described by 
Aristoph. Nubb. v. 104. v. 601 sq. and there scholiast. Avv. 1570. 
Xenoph. Memorab. II. 3. Plat. Charmid. p. 153. B. 

m Kai vpwv T(p rrXyOei eralpog ] Reference is made to the flight 
of the Athenians in the time of the Thirty Tyrants. The words /ca- 
nevai, KarkpxsvOai are very often used in speaking of those who 
return to their native country from exile. See Aristoph. Ran. 1274 ; 
Herodo. III. 45. and Poison on Eurip. Med. 1011. Further on i<tf 
o ti opprjcreie is said more emphatically for ei erri n bpprjaeie, 
n eroXprjae rovro pavrevaaaQai] pavrevetrOai here is, to re¬ 
quire an oracle to be delivered to him, that is, to consult, to inquire, 
as in Xenoph. Memor. I. 1,6. 7repi de tCjv ddfjXwv, 'Smog av a7ro- 
l3r)(TOLTo, pavrevaopevovg erreprcev, ei rroiyrea. 

° r/pero yap drj, el rig] Respecting this act of Chaerephon, see 
Xenoph. Apolog. 14. and Laert. II. 37. 

p dveTXev ovv y ILvQia] The words of the Pythian priestess 
were, according to Laert. II. 37. ’A vdp&v airdvroiv 2 (oKparyg <ro- 
< pwrarog . In Schol. Aristoph. Nubb. v. 144. they appear thus : 
Eo<pog Xo<poKXrjg, (To^xbrepog d’ Evpnridrjg' ’AvdpGtv de Tcavrwv 
EuiKparyg ao^wrarog. 

q 6 adeXtpog — avrov ] Chaerc-crates. See Xenoph. Mem. 

II. 3. 

VI. a Zvvoida epavrqi <r o<pbg u>v.~\ In another manner, C. VIII. 
epavrqi Zwydeiv ovdev kTZKTTap'evq), See Matth. §. 548. 2. 

b ov yap Gepig aury] See De Republ. II. p. 383. B. ^Eschyl. 
Prom. v. 1032. Pindar. Pyth. III. 29. IX. 44 foil, ed Bceckh. 

c r)7r6povv, ri vote Xsyti] Fischer thought it ought to be written 
Xiyoi. But there is no occasion for this; since he passes from the 
oratio ubliqua to a direct address : whence also ri, not b n, is used. 
See Matth. §. 529. 3. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


105 


d Kal diaXsydfxevoQ avTtp, e£o£e /tot] This usage of the par¬ 
ticiple in the nominative case with the verb t$o£e, where the strict 
grammatical construction would requite the dative, is not un¬ 
common. De Legg. III. p. 686. D. a7ro(3Xe\pag yap v-pog tovtov 
t6v (TtoXov, ov 7rspi SiaXeyofieQa, tdo%k poi irayicaXog ilvai. 
Xenoph. Hell. VII. 5, 18. tvOv/xoitfitvog, on — kdoKsi avnp. 
Cyrop. VI. 1, 18. (iovXopsvog Trs/ixf/ai — tdo%ev avT(p. In the 
same way in Latin. Hirt. De bello Afric. c. 25. Dum haec ita 
fierent, rex luba, cognitis difficultatibus copiarumque paucitate, non 
est visum, &c. 

e 7 rpbg kfiavrov —IXoyt^o/tr/v] That is, I reasoned with myself, 
as Phaedo c. 45. rrpog ejxavTov <TKv\jap.f.vog, and Euthyphro p. 
9. B. 7Tj obg ip,avrbv (tkottw. On the words wgmp ovv ovk olda, 
See Matthiae Gr. §. 625. 

f ( 7fiiKp(p Tivi avT<p TovTip cro(p(i)T£pog tlvai ] Cic. Academ. I. 4. 
Socrates—ita disputat, ut—nihil se scire dicat nisi id ipsum, eoque 
praestare ceteris, quod illi quae nesciant scire se putent, ipse se nihil 
scire id unum sciat; ob eamque causam se arbitrari ab Apolline 
omnium sapientissimum esse dictum, quod haec esset una hominis 
sapientia, non arbitrari sese scire quod nesciat. Fischer is wrong in 
thinking that the words ff/wcpy) tivi are explained by the words 
avnp rovT(p. For the sense is: I think that I am a little wiser 
than this man at least by this very thing, because what I am ignorant 
of, I do not even think that I ktiow, 

VII. a on aTrr}xQ<*-v6\ii}v] The words belong not only to 8e- 
Siwg, but also to aioOavo^tvog and Xvtt ovfievog. Wolf has cor¬ 
rectly rendered them : seeing indeed and grieving that I was becoming 
hated and for that reason fearing. On the words to tov Oeov, see 
Matth. §. 284. 

b Iteov ovv, ffico7rovvn~\ Socrates relates to the judges what he 
said and thought at the time spoken of. I must go then, I said to 
myself, (for this is implied in the preceding kdonei) to find out what 
is the meaning of the oracle, 8(c. The reading fcai leva (TKOTcovvn, 
which appears in the old editions, gives a feebleness to the sentence, 
and might easily have arisen from a correction. I have, therefore, 
rejected it with Bekker. In one Vindob., which has preserved the 
true reading, we find in the margin Kal Ikvai. 

c Kal vr) tov Kvva ] There are various opinions respecting So¬ 
crates’ swearing by the dog and other animals, which have been 
collected by Menagius, Laert. II. 40. p. 92. foil, and Pet.Petitus Ob- 
servatt. Miscell. 4. 7., who thought that by the dog was understood 


106 


NOTES ON THE 


the dcemonium of Socrates. loach. Camerarius Opusc. de R. R. p. 
28, thought that the dog was the symbol of faith, and, therefore, that 
the oath vrj rov kvvci nearly answered to the Latin medius fidius. 
But, on this obscure subject I am inclined to agree with those who 
think that Socrates swore by the dog, the goose, and also the oak, 
(see Cyrill. Alexandr. c. Julian. 6. p. 190. A.), because he was 
unwilling to swear by the gods themselves. See Porphyr. de Absti¬ 
nent. III. 16. 

d £7 raQov tl roiovrov ol plv pdXiara —] Those sentences, 
which are subjoined to others for the purpose of explanation, are 
often added without connective particles. Gorg. p. 450. A. ical 
pijv Kai at aXXai r'txvai, & Topy'ia, ovrcog Zxovac tKdarr) avrwv 
7Ttpi Xoyovg tori rovrovg, o'i rvyxdvovoiv bvrtg k . r. X. Ibid, 
p. 465. D. to rov *AvaZayopov av ttoXv rjv, & <J>iXe IIwXe,— opov 
av 7r dvr a xprjixaTci ityvptro. Compare Phaedo p. 68. E. ti ft ol 
Koapioi avrwv ; ov ravrov rovro TrtrrovGaaiv' aKoXaaiq, nvi <tw- 
<Ppovkg ei(n ; Legg. I. p. 635. D. tvsica rr}g yXvKvGvpiag ri}g it pog 
rag r/bovag ravrov 7Ttiaovrai roZg r/rrwptvoig ratv <J>6fl(ov bov- 
Xtvaovai rpoirov erspov Kai Zr aiax'uo. Gorg. p. 513. A. Phaedr. 
p. 251. D. Menex. p. 235. B. Eurip. Heraclid. v. 179. pr) rraQyg 
av rovro, rovg apsivovag rrapov <piXovg ZXtaGai, rovg KaKiovag 
Xaj3yg. Eurip. Iphig. Aul. v. 366. Compare Heindorf on Phaedo 
p. 57. Matth. on Eurip. Hecub. v. 777. 

e i va poi Kai aveXeyKrog y pavrtia yevotro’] Socrates says that 
he did all things in order to refute the oracle ; but, that after much 
trouble on his part, he even confirmed its truth so completely, that it 
was aveXeyKrog, that is, incapable of being convicted of error . 

f a /.ioi kdoKsi — TTSTTpaypartvaOai at>rot£] That is, which ap¬ 
peared to have been composed by them with most diligence . The im¬ 
perfect biypwrwv joined with av, denotes the repetition of the action. 
See Matth. §. 599. 1. 

g oi Ttapovrtg av fieXnov ZXtyov 7 repi wv avroi hrmroiyKtaav^ 
All who were present used to think best of those poems which they 
themselves had composed. The imperfect ZXeyov with av denotes in 
this passage also the repetition of the action. 

h wg-n-sp ol Geopdvreig Kai ol Ion. p. 533. E. 

7r dvreg yap o'i re rwv erewv iroiyrai ol ayaGoi ovk Ik rexvyg, 
aXX' ZvGeoi ovrtg Kai Karexopfvoi rravra ra KaXd Xeyovai 7 roir)- 
para, Kai oi peXonoioi oi ayaGoi aigavrwg. — Kai ov irporepov 
olog re ttoisZv (6 7roirjrrig), rrpiv av ZvGeog re ysvtjrai Kai Zk- 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


107 


<j>p<vv Kai o voiig prjKETi iv avnp ivy. ecjg d’ av tovto E\y to 
KT rjpa, advvciTog Lari ttoieiv—K ai xpyopipdelv. 

1 yaOoprjv avrcav—elvai avOpcjTrcjv] On the construction see 
Matth. $. 349. 1 . Compare §. 549. 4. and $. 536.— d ovk %aav , 
that is, (ro 0 oi. 

VIII. a tovtov pev OVK Lxf/evirOyv] See Matth. §. 338. 

b OTTEp Kai ot 7 roirjrai Kai oi ayaOoi dypiovpyoi] Demosth. 
Midian. p. 514. ed. Reisk. iycij d’ 07rgp av Kai vpcjv EKaarog 
vfipiaQtig TrpoeiXero irpa^ai, tovto Kai avrog ETroiyaa. Phaedo 
p. 64. C. aKe\f/ai drj, w aya0g, Lav apa Kai <roi ZwdoKy dnep Kai 
epoi. 

c Kai raXXa ra peyiara aoipiordrog elvai] That is, to take a 
part in the management of the affairs of the state. 

d EKtivyv rrjv ootpiav cnreKpv7rTev] That is, the error and folly 
of these men obscured their real knowledge. 

* avepwrav virip tov xp*]<rpov] That is, on behalf of the oracle. 
Further on, the word dixecrOai signifies to prefer, to choose, as often 
elsewhere. 

f apaOrjg ryv apaOiav] i. e. avrwv .— aptyoTepa, understand 
aoffiav and apaOiav. 

IX. a Kai olai xa\g 7 rwrarai] That is, by far the most grievous 
and severe. For before olaiis to be understood roiavrai. Xenoph. 
Mem. IV. 8 , 11. idoKEi roiovTog elvai, olog av sir) apiarog ye 
avyp Kai evdaipoveaTarog. See Matth. §. 461. Compare Viger. 
de Idiot, p. 120 . 

b ovopa be tovto XkyeaBai, ao<pog elvai] The words aoipbg 
elvai are added by way of explanation to the preceding. It is usual 
to put elvai after a verb of naming; see Heindorf on Theaetet. 
p. 160. ware site Tig elvai ti ovopdZ,ei. 

c to de Kivdvvevei—aoipog elvai] That is, but as yet the god 
appears in reality to be wise. Rep. I. p. 340. C. Xeyapev Tip pi 7 - 
pan ovTiog, on 6 iarpog iZypapre Kai o ypappanaryg’ to d’, 
olpai, EKaarog tovtcjv, kciQ' oaov tout eotlv, o rcpogayopevopev 
avrov, ovderroTe apapravei. Menon. p. 97. D. Xeyovreg, on 
ippovrjcng povov r/yelTai tov opOwg 7r parreiv. to de apa Kai do%a 
yv dXyOyg. Theaetet. p. 157. A. wgre i% cnrdvriov tovtwv — 
ovd'ev elvai iv avTO KaQ ’ avro, aXXd tivi aei yiyveaOai —to d’ 
ov del k. t. X., on which see Heindorf. For to di the fuller ex¬ 
pression to de aXyOeg is sometimes given. Rep. IV. p. 443. D. to 
de ye aXyOeg, toiovtov pev ti yv—y diKaioavvrj. Tim. p. 86 . D. 
to de aXrjOeg r) tt epi ra cuppodicia ciKoXaaia — vbaog xpvyrjg ye- 


108 


NOTES ON THE 


yovt. The article with Sk indicates something so opposed to some 
other thing, that it ought to be accounted true. In this passage 
after to 8k is put np ovn, in order that the force of that form, to 8k, 
may be increased and made more apparent. 

d oXiyov nvog — Kai ovbtvog~\ Here Kai before ovbtvog increases 
and corrects the meaning of oXiyov Tivog, in this sense : human 
wisdom is of little value—I should rather say, of no value at all. In 
the same way piKpa Kai ovbkv in Demosth. p. 790. 20. and p. 260. 
26. ed. Reisk. There is, therefore, no occasion to write r/ Kai ov8t- 
vog. The Latin writers use atque in exactly the same manner. See 
Matth. on Cicer. II. Catil. XII. 27. Manil. XVIII. 54. 

e Kai ^aivtrai tout ov Xsytiv tov SwK/oarjj] That is, and he 
appears not to say this of Socrates. The pronoun tovto refers to 
what has gone before to oo<pbv tlvai. On the construction compare 
Orito C. VIII. (ppovnorsov, ri spovoiv ot noXXoi ripag. Menon. 
p. 77. A. oirtp <paoi rovg ovvTpifiovTag ft. Aristoph. Acharn. 
v. 593. ravri Xsytig ov Tbv OTparyyov ; Ibid. v. 580. ti S’ tiirag 
rjpcig ; ovk ips ig ; Sophocl. Electr. v. 984. roiavTa rot vw 7rag rig 
tZtpti (3poTu>v. Eurip. Iphig. Taur. v. 340. OavpaoT tXsgag tov 
ipavevO’. Andromach. v. 646. rt Srjr’ av ehroig rovg yspovTag wg 
oo<poi ; Heyne on Homer, Vol. V. p. 285. The Attics use the form 
Xkyuv nva, for Xsysiv 7repi Tivog. For it is usual to say, Xsytiv 
Tiva rt, Xsytiv nva on, wg, si avrog, as Xsytiv Tiva on koOXog son. 

f wgirtp av ti tnroi ] On the construction of the words wgTTtp av 
ti, see C. I. note ( r ). In this passage the complete sentence would 
be wgirtp av ttoioZto, ti sittoi. Therefore I have no doubt that 
Stephens, Heindorf, and Bekker have correctly inserted ti. 

B Kai Twv clotwv Kai tuiv Z'tva)v\ These genitives depend on 
the following nva. 

h Tip 6t(p j3or]Qu>v evdsiKW/iai] That is, acting in such a man¬ 
ner that the response of Apollo may appear to be true. The word 
aoxoXia, Thom. Mag., interprets : r/ rctpi ti avaoTpotyr], that is, 
attention bestowed on any thing. 

1 aXX’ sv TTtviq, pvpiq, tipi —] Tltvia differs in the same man¬ 
ner from 7TT<x)xiia, as Lat. paupertas from egestas. Therefore irtvia 
is applied to artisans and other men of that description, who live by 
the labour of their hands ; but fl-ra^na to beggars. See Aristoph. 
Plut. v.552 sqq. and the commentators on the passage, pvpia irtvia 
is the greatest poverty: which expression has been illustrated by 
Valckenaer on Phoeniss. v. 1480. The extreme poverty of So¬ 
crates is spoken of by himself, in Xenoph. (Econom. II. 3., where 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


109 


he says that he would sell his house and all his other property for 
5 Attic minae. Whence he was also commonly called irivyg, as 
we learn from Xenoph. (Econ. II. 3. 

X. a oi tojv 7r\ou(7iwrdrwv] This is added by Socrates, that 
the cause of the odium against himself may more clearly appear. 
Protagor. p. 328. C. Kal ravra paXiora ttoioxxtlv oi paXiara 8v- 
va/xevoi, (i. e. take care that their sons should be instructed,) pd- 
\i<rra de divavrcu oi TrXovaiwTaTOi. 

b ip'e fUfiovvTcu, eira ETrixtipovoiv] It is well known that dra 
and t7TEirct are often put for Kal slra, and Kal e7teitci after a finite 
verb. See Theaetet. p. 151. C. Euthyd. p. 295. C. D. Phaedr. 
63. C., in. which passages it signifies then, afterwards. The con¬ 
struction in this passage is a little different, in which tira is and 
then, ical tote. It is used in the same manner, Cratyl. p. 411. B., 
on which Heindorf, besides this passage, has compared Rep. p. 
336. B. Fischer, therefore, has badly corrected it pupovpevoi. 

c eldoTiov Be oXiya t] This is more emphatic than the 

common reading ri oXiya y) ovdev. For i) used in this manner, 
signifies or rather ; which is not the. case in the form f) oXiya ri 
ovS'ev. Plat. Phaedr. p. 224. B. /3pa%aa rj ovdev. Alciphron. III. 4. 
oXiya fj ovdev diatyspovcn. 

d aXX’ ovx avrolo] This is said ironically. They are enraged, 
he says, with me, when they ought rather to he angry with themselves 
for allowing themselves to be refuted by those lads. The common 
reading ovk avrolg, has much less of ironical elegance, and would 
probably have been rather ovk ekeIvoiq. 

e oti tcl fiETEwpa Kal tcl v7ro yrjg] These words depend upon 
diSaaKiov, which must be repeated at the end of the sentence. 

f oti KaTadrjXoi — 7rpog7roiov[JLevoi] On the construction see 
Matth. §. 296. compared with 549. 

* Kal (Ttyodpoi Kal 7 roXXol, Kal ZvvTETaypkvwg Kal iriBavwg. X.] 
This is a metaphor taken from soldiers arrayed in line of battle; who 
are said to attack the enemy ^wTETaypEVwg, when they assault 
them in regular line. Therefore, the calumniators of Socrates are 
here said ZvvTETaypkvwg XkyEiv, since they assailed him with ca¬ 
lumnies as it were in regular array ; that is, in such a manner as it 
appeared that they had come to an agreement among themselves as to 
the best and most efficacious mode of calumniating. TciOavwg, that 
is, in a manner adapted to persuade. 

b EfJt 7 TE 7 rXr]Ktt(Tiv vpwv tcl u)Tcl\ Compare Plat. Lysis p. 204. 
C. r)pwv yovv ticKtKuxpwKE Ta wra Kal EpLTc'sirXriKE A v<ndog. 

L 


110 


NOTES ON THE 


Lucian. Amor. §. I. T. V. p. 256. ed. Bip. ipuirtKrjg ttcuSiolq 1% 
eioQivov 7rtTrXr]p()JKag ra wra. 

* M eXrjTog pivv7rkp rwv 7roi^rwv] Meletus, who brouglit the 
cause of Socrates, by a regular form of accusation, before the Archon, 
as appears from Euthyphr. p. 2. B. and other passages, was a tragic 
poet, who was not very celebrated or successful in his art. See the 
scholiast on Aristoph. Ran. v. 1337., and ThirlwalPs * History of 
Greece,’ vol. 4. p. 274, note 5. At the time he accused Socrates, 
he was very young, but puffed up with pride and arrogance, as may 
be understood from Euthyphr. p. 2. B. C. Meletus is said to have 
been one of the Four, who by order of the Thirty Tyrants, brought 
Leon of Salamis to Athens. The affair is related by Andocides 
De Mysler. p. 46. Orat. T. IV. ed. Reisk. Compare c. XX.— 
Anytus, son of Anthemion, a fivpaodetprig, or tanner, (as appears 
from Epist. VII. Socr. p. 30. and Schol. on Plat. Men. p. 90. A. 
compare Xenoph. Apol. 39.,) was by far the most powerful and in¬ 
veterate of the accusers of Socrates, so that Horace, Satyr. II. 4., not 
without justice, called Socrates Anylireum. Being a man of great 
wealth and political influence, and opposed to the aristocratical 
party, he was exiled by the Thirty Tyrants ; he returned to Athens 
with Thrasybulus, after holding the rank of general at Phyle. See 
Xenoph. Ilellen. II. 3. Plat. Epist. VII. about the middle. In the 
dialogue of Plato entitled Meno, “Anytus is introduced as violently 
offended with Socrates on account of the turn which his discourse 
had taken, and as quitting him with a threat, which, if it was ever 
uttered, was fulfilled by this indictment.”—Thirlwall’s * History of 
Greece,’ vol. JV. p. 275 ; see Meno, 92—94. E. Other causes of 
his enmity against Socrates have been related by Xenoph. Apolog. 
Socr. §. 29. Libanius Apol. Socr. p. 11. ed. Reisk. Plutarch Vit. 
Alcib. c. 4. Anytus is said to have been a man of bad character; 
see Aristot. ap. Harpocr. under the word dticdZeiv. Plutarch Vit. 
Coriol. c. XIV. Diod. Sicul. XIII. 64. Compare Plut. Amator. 
p. 276. C. D.— Lyco was one of the ten orators, who according to 
the law of Solon were to plead and conduct the public causes. See 
Diog. Laert. II. 38., and the commentators on the passage. 

k T avr tonv vpuv , S) dvdp. ’A3 ., TaXrjQrj] That is, these are 
the things which 1 before said that I would relate to you with truth. 
He refers to the words, C. I., vpslg S’ tpov aKovcrsade irctaav rijv 
aXrjQeiav. 

1 ovd’ v7ro<TTtiXap,evog~\ v7to<tteXXe<tQcu is properly to withdraw 
one’s self, to depart privately: hence to dissimulate, as in this pas- 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


Ill 


sage. The use of this word has been learnedly explained by Wyt- 
tenbach on Julian, p. 149 sq. ed. Lips. 

m iav re avOig] That is, hereafter, as Phaedo p. 115. A. 
Rep. V. p. 466. A. Gorg. p. 447. B. C. p. 449. C. D. Xenoph. 
Sympos. I, 16. and elsewhere, iav re — iav re, whether — or, 
differs in the same manner from el re—el re, whether — or, as iav 
from 

XI. a avry ecru) — iKavi) a7roXoy/a] The old editions erro¬ 
neously add the article. For avry is the subject: Let this be suf¬ 
ficient defence. Compare c. I. note (*). 

b rov ayaQov re Kai ^iXottoXiv] Suidas and other grammarians 
are wrong in saying that the word (pCXoiroXig is koivov, but <pi\o- 
Trarpig, ’Attikov. Both are used in Attic Greek ; see Ducker on 
Thucyd. VI. 92., <piXo7rarpig means a lover of Greece; but tpiXo- 
rroXig a lover of the Athenian community. 

c avOig yap drj—Xaflojpev au] He indicates by these words, that 
after having disposed of the charges of his former accusers, he is now 
going to refute those of the others; and that he wishes their bill of 
indictment likewise to be read, as he had read the avrwyovia of the 
others, C. III. avOig av, Again then—let us now on the other hand 
take the indictment of these. 

■ d e\ei de mog That is, somewhat thus. Hesych. wbe ttu> g' 

ovrw, rovrov rov rporcov. But that is the meaning of wde by 
itself. Socrates, therefore, says that he is not going to give the exact 
words, but only the substance of the indictment against him. The 
form of the accusation was still extant at Athens in the time of Pha- 
vorinus, in the second century, in prjrpip(p, that is, in the temple of 
the mother of the gods, in which, says Diog. Laert. II. 40. there was 
a registry in these words : rj d'e dvnopoaia rrjg dUyg rovrov elxe 
rov rpoirov' avaiceirai yap en teal vvv, Qrjcri <E 'aftupZvog, iv np 
pyrp(p(p' “Tade iypaxf/aro Kai avOwpoXoyrjffaro MeXirog MfXc- 
rov, IhrOevg, 'ZwKpdrei Suxppov'KJKOV, ' AXwTreKpQev' ’AdiKeZ 2a/- 
Kpdrrjg ovg pev r/ 7toXig vopi^ei Qeovg ov vopi^wv, erepa di Kaiva 
baipovia eigyyovpevog’ aStKeZ de Kai rovg v’eovg dia<p9eipwv. ri-> 
pypa Oavarog.” Therefore the accusation which is here put first, 
is there mentioned in the second place. 

e on (nrovdy xapifvr/^erai] xapuvriZeaQai, which is derived 
from x a pt £l G> witty* cheerful, is properly to joke or banter in a cheer¬ 
ful and witty manner, in the same sense as evrpmreXeveaQai ; 
hence, absolutely, to joke, to sport, as here and c. XIV. Therefore 
ff 7 rovdy x a 9 L£VTl %> iTai is > as we sa y in En § lish » to joke in earnest . 


112 


NOTES ON THE 


For Meletus, in casting such an unfounded imputation on Socrates, 
and pretending that he himself cared for the education of youth, ap¬ 
peared xapiei/ri'2e<r0ac, that is, to sport and joke; but, because he 
accused Socrates of corrupting youth, and prosecuted that accusation 
seriously and zealously, he is said tnrovSy x a 9 Le vrl&aOai. Further 
on, fodlug rashly. See Heindorf on Charmid. $. 44.— eig dydiva 
KaOioravai, means to accuse. See Euthyphr. c. 3. 

XII. a K ai poi devpo,—elrre] Bekker Anecdot. I. p. 88. fovpo 
dvrl tov epxov. Aristoph. Ecclesiaz. v. 989. dXX’ ovroat yap 
avrog, ov peprypeOa. devpo dr], devpo dr], <f>'iXov epbv, rrpogeXQe, 
Kal Zvvevvog poi rijv evtppbvrjv omog e<rei. Plato’s Rep. IV. d. 
445. C. V. p. 477. D. Lysid. p. 203. B. 

b "AXXo n 7 repi 7 r. 7 r.] See Hermann, on Viger. p. 730. n. 110. 
On omog used with a future, see Herm. on Viger. p. 851. Euthy¬ 
phr. p. 2. D. opQwg «<m rwv vewv rrpwrov e7TipeXr]9rjvai, 

07 T(x)g eoovrai o n dpiaroi. 

c peXov ye trot] On the construction, see Matth. §. 564. Buttm. 
§. 132. 6. obs. 7. 

d ipe eigayeig tovtokti] The verb elgayeiv is said either of the 
magistrate, when it signifies to permit an accuser to indict a person on 
some law , to grant permission to bring an action ; or of the prosecutor, 
when it means to bring into court, to accuse, as here. In both sig¬ 
nifications, either elg diKaarypiov, as c. 17., pe eigayoi rig elg 
diKacrrrjpiov, or something of the kind is understood. In this pas¬ 
sage the word tovtokti is added, and supplies the place of that 
expression. See Meier and Schoemann 4 Der Attische Process,’ 
p. 709. not. 19. 

e opyg, w MeXr/rc] The word opqLg, prefixed in this manner, is 
used in derision. Compare Aristoph. Nubb. v. 662. 669. Vesp. v. 
393. Pac. v. 330. Rann. v. 1136. 1245. Eurip. El. v. 1121. The 
whole of the following passage is expressed rather in the Socratic 
style of argument, than of a speech in a court of justice. 

f vr) rr]v''H.pav\ This oath is also used by Socrates in Xenoph. 
Mem. I. 5, 5 ; III. 10, 9 ; 111. 11, 5. 

B Twv uxpeXovvruJv] That is, rwv fieXriovg ttoiovvtiov. 

h Tt dal ol PovXevrai ] Concerning the (5ovXevrai f see note ( b ) 
on C. XX. There were two senates at Athens: the Areopagus, 
j 3ovXr] i] e% ’A peiov rcdyov, and the senate offive hundred, (3ovXrj j) 
twv TrevraKOfTioiv, instituted by Solon. Either may be meant here. 
On the words ’AXX’ apa — prj oi Iv r. skk. see Protag. p. 312. A. 
dXX’ apa, u> 'ImroKpareg, pi) ov roiavrtjv vrroXapfiaveig ; Eu- 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 113 

thydem. p. 290. E. d\\* apa, tit tt pog Atog, prj 6 Krycwnrog 6 
Tavr eintitV. 

' tovq veot rspovg] No one was permitted to be present at the 
assemblies until he had attained the age of at least 18 or 20. See 
Schoemann * De Comitiis Alheniensium,’ p. 76 sq. Hence it is ob¬ 
vious that ol v'eoi and vetitrepoi were young men under 18. 

k epov KaTeyvbJicag dvgrvxiav] The construction has been ex¬ 
plained by Matthiae §. 378. ^Esch. adv. Ctesiph. §. 12. rig av 
ovv itptitv ToXprjaeit Tovavrrjv dveXevOepiav Karayvutvai rov 
dr/pov ; 

1 oi pev fleXriovg —6 dia^Oeiputv] To tt avreg olvQquttoi we 
must understand doicoixn, from what has preceded ; exactly as Hipp. 
min. p. 379. D. Lysis p. 212. D. These words contain the ex¬ 
planation of the words ovrot doteel <roi ex HV , an< ^ therefore are added 
without connective particles. Gorg. p. 479. B. Kivdvvevovtri yap 
— toiovtov ti Troitiv Koi ol rrjv d'ucrjv <pevyovreg, tit nwXe* TO 
aXyeivov avrov icaQopdv, tt pog de to uxpeXipov TvtyXutg extiv Kai 
ayvoeiv. 

m edv te— ov <prjTE~\ Grammarians commonly say that after ei, 
lav, \iva , o<ppa , onnog, and other words of the same kind, py and not 
ov ought to be used. We may, however, correctly say ei ov, when 
ov is so closely joined in signification with the verb, as in reality to 
form with it only a single idea, as Hermann says, on Viger. p. 833. 
But this is the case in the form ov <pdvai, which from its literal sig¬ 
nification, to say not, becomes equivalent to to deny. When it retains 
this meaning, ov <j>avai is always used, although preceded by con¬ 
ditional particles. 

“ ei elg — dia(pOelpei~\ C. XXVII. 7r oXXr) pevr av pe <piXo- 
^vxia ^X 0l >—°VTiog aXoynTTog eipi. C. XVII. ei pev ovv 
ravra Xtyutv biatyOeipat rovg veovg, Tavr av eiy (3Xa(5epd. 
Theaet. 171. B. ovkovv ti!)v avrov av tpevdrj <rvyx<vpol, ei rr/v 
tuiv rjyovpevotv avrov i\jevdeoOai bpoXoyel dXydrj eivai ; where 
see Heindorf. Sympos. p. 208, C. Phaed. p. 69. E. Alcibiad. I. 
p. 122. B. Ibid. p. 109. C. p. 114. E. p. 116. D. Protagor. p. 
340. E. on which passage Heindorf has given more examples. 
Compare Matth. §. 524. 1. and on a similar form of the Latin 
writers, Heindorf Horat. Satir. II. 3, 154. Socrates speaks on the 
supposition, that what Meletus had before affirmed, was true. In 
English : For it would be very fortunate for the youth, if in reality 
(as you say) one alone corrupted them. 

XIII. a tit tclv, anoicpivai] A contraction of tit Irdv, see 


114 


NOTES ON THE 


Hermann on Sophocl. Philoctet. v. 1373. Compare Bast, on Gregor. 
Corinth, p. 904. Lobeck. on Phryn. p. 196. Apollonitis in Bekker. 
Anecd. I. p. 569. 11. Etym. Magn. 825. 11. On the accent, see 
Dionys. Thrax in Bekker Anecd. p. 949. 21. 

b rovg del kyyvraTio — ovrag ] That is, those who are at any time 
nearest to them. See Valcken. on Herodot. II. 98. on Theocrit. 
Adoniaz. p. 273. Toup. on Longin. p. 417. ed. Weisk, Compare 
Buttmann. §. 137. 

c ical yap 6 vop,og iceXevet airoKpiveoQai ] The very words of 
the law to which Socrates here refers, are found in Demosth. c. 
Steph. orat. II. p. 1131. N opiog. roXv avTib'acoiv kiravayiceg elvai 
diroKpivaaOai dXXr]Xoig ro kpwrwpievov, fJiapTvpelv 6k /xfj. 

d TrfXiKovrov ovTog ] For Meletus was a young man. See 
c. X. note (*). Compare C. XIV. 

e eig Toqovrov dfxaQiag i/jew] On this construction see Matth. 
$.341. Compare 504. 1. 2. 

f oi/uai 6e ov6k aXXov — ov6eva ] That is, ireiaeaOai <rot, by a 
usual ellipsis after olfiai 6k icai, Euthyphro p. 3. E. aXXd ov re 
Kara vovv dywviel rrjv 6'iKrjv, ol/xai 6k ical kjuk rr/v k/xrjv. 

s 7ravaofiai o ye aic(ov Trotw] The participle -koiwv must be 
understood. For it is not correct to say tt aveaQai rt. Heindorf. 
conjectured that tcoi&v ought to be restored to the text. 

XIV. a ovre [xeya ovre (T[UKpov~\ Compare C. VI. ovre /xeya 
ovts (Tfuicpov %vvoi6a kp,avT(p <ro<pog utv. 

b tj 6ijXov 6ri, on —] Here i) is put as it were to correct what he 
has before said. The sense is this : But, why do 1 ask ? it is evident 
—or : is it indeed evident ? 

c on ica-ra ryv y pa^v] Understand kfik <J>yg 6ia<J>6eipeiv rovg 
vewrepovg. 

d ov ravra Xsytie] We are to connect ravra with the participle 
6i6d<TK(ov. 

e wv vvv 6 Xoyog ko rtv] The genitive 66v is governed by Xoyog, 
and we are not to understand the preposition irepi, which has been 
done by some. For as we can say not only Xkyeiv irepi Tivog, but 
also sometimes Xeyeiv nva, (on which construction some remarks 
have been made on C. IX. note ( e ) ) we may also correctly say both 
Xoyoc irepi rtvog and Xoyof Tivog. For he might have said ovgvvv 
Xeyopiev, which would have been more in accordance with the mean¬ 
ing than the other construction irepi &v vvv Xeyopiev. The same 
construction is found in Charmid. p. 156. A. ov yap rt aov oXiyog 
Xoyog kariv. Demosth. de Cor. p. 281. ed. R. rovg Xoyovg avrwv, 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


115 


i. e. 7T(pi avr&v . Eurip. Med. v. 541. ovk olv f/v Xoyof ceOev, 
i. e. 7T£pl aov. Compare Dorvill on Charit. p. 592. Schaefer on 
Sophocl. Antig. v. 11. where there is pvQog <pikajv, i. e. 7repi 
<pi\u)v . 

f ovre avrov vop'i&iv — rovg re aXXovg] See Protagor. p. 
347. E. ovSkv Seovrai aWorplag <f>u)vrjg ovdk rroiyrwv, ovg ovre 
avepkoOai olov r tori rrepl wv Xkyovaiv, errayopevol Tt avrovg oi 
7 roXXoi— adwarovaiv eZeXeyZai. Ibid. p. 361. E. ovre raXXa 
olficti KctKog elvai av0poj7rog, <j)0ovepog re ijkktt dv dv0pv)TTO)v. 
Charmid. p. 169. C. I). Politic, p. 266. D. 

8 iva ri ruvra Xeyetg] Hermann, on Viger. p. 849., says that 
'iva ri involves an ellipsis, and that the full construction in the 
present tense would be ' iva rl yevijrai ; in the past iva ri yk- 
voiro. 

h Ma At",—eTrei r. r;X.] With pa A la we are to understand 
from what has gone before ov vopi^ei Qeovg. For Budaeus has 
truly observed that pd Ala is not a negation by itself, but that we 
must often supply the negation from the preceding part of the sen¬ 
tence. See Viger. p. 450. 

* ’Ava^ayopov olei —] Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, according to 
Laertius II. 8., taught that the sun was pvdpov dia7rvpov, which 
some understand to be an ignited mass of iron, others of stone, as 
Socrates himself, in Xenoph. Mem. IV. 7. 7., where he endeavours 
to refute this opinion of Anaxagoras. The same philosopher said 
that the moon had oUrjaeig, \6<povg and ^apayyag, i. e. was yijv. 
Meletus attributed these opinions to Socrates, because Socrates had 
received instruction from Archelaus, who had been a disciple of 
Anaxagoras. Anaxagoras was born b.c. 500, and died b. c. 428. 

k Kai Sij Kal oi veoi ravra— ] And the young men forsooth learn 
these things from me. For Socrates ironically repeats the words 
which he supposes to proceed from Meletus. Heindorf, by taking 
away the comma before Kai drj Kal, made these words depend on the 
preceding on, a construction which appears to me to be forced. 

i SpaxprjQ sk T VQ dpxn^pag] Dacier understands by these 
words, that the books containing these opinions of Anaxagoras might 
be purchased for a drachma from the orchestra. But Forster lightly 
remarks that we never read of books being exposed for sale in the 
orchestra.—Originally no sum wa3 charged for admission to the 
theatres ; but crowds and tumults having arisen from the concourse 
of many persons, of whom some had not any right to enter, it was 
evidently to be expected that in a theatre made of wood, which was 


116 


NOTES ON THE 


the only one that Athens then possessed, the scaffolding would 
break; and this accident, in fact, took place ; to avoid which evil, 
it was determined to let the seats : the phrase used to express this 
was Qkav aTtopicOovv and Oeav ayopa^tiv. The seats were let 
by the farmers or lessees of the theatres, who were called either 
Oearpwvai, or OearpoxutXat, or dpx itsktovsq, as in Demosth. de 
corona p. 234, 23. Vol. I. Compare Casaubon on Theophrast. 
Char. 2.; and two oboli was the general price paid by each person, 
according to Demosthenes in the passage referred to; sometimes a 
drachma, according to Casaubon in the passage referred to. Com¬ 
pare Boeckh ‘ On the Public Economy of Athens,’ Vol. I. p. 293 
foil. Engl. Transl. But since, according to Harpocration and Sui- 
das, under the word Qsojpucd, and Schol. on Lucian’s Timon. Vol. I. 
p. 6., a drachma was the greatest sum that could ever be demanded 
by the lessee, it is evident why Socrates said & tZecnv, ei it aw 
ttoXXov, dpaxfjLfjg irpiaaQai,. —But how could these doctrines of 
the philosopher be learned in the theatre 1 It is certain that the 
dramatic poets often inserted the opinions of the philosophers in 
their plays; either to praise them, as Euripides, who frequently 
alluded in his tragedies to the opinions of Anaxagoras, as is shown 
by Valcken. Diatribe in Fragm. Eurip. p. 29 foil., or to con¬ 
demn and ridicule them, which we know to have been done by 
Aristophanes. That Socrates principally alludes to Euripides in 
this passage, appears from the circumstance that he was the first who 
introduced on the stage the doctrine of Anaxagoras concerning the 
sun and moon. See what has been said on this by Valcken. in the 
work above cited, p. 31., and Poison on Eurip. Orest, v. 971. p. 192. 
ed. Lips. sec. The sense of the whole passage is this: Meletus de¬ 
clares that I affirm the sun to be a stone, and the moon earth. But 
surely the judges know that this is the doctrine of Anaxagoras ; and if 
I were to pretend that I introduced this opinion, the young men could 
discover, even from the plays of the dramatic poets, my vanity in 
appropriating it to myself, and would justly ridicule me. 

m Kai veottitl] He alludes to the youth of Meletus. See 

C. XIII. 

“ u>£7T(p a’iviypa ZwtiOsvti SiaTrsipiopevtp] Ficinus has cor¬ 
rectly interpreted this : videtur enim ceu (enigma quoddam componere 
tentans, an Socrates, fyc. There is no need of Kai, which is com¬ 
monly inserted before dia7reipojpev(p. Gorg. p. 464. C. and p. 479. 

D. ’ApxeXaov svdaipovl^wv rov ra pkyiara adiKovvra, diKrjv 
ovdepiav didovra, where Kai is commonly inserted after adiKovvra. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


117 


Republ. IV. 440. D. Politic, p. 273. D. Phaedr. p. 251. D. and 
Phileb. p. 53. Euthyphr p. 27.—On the use of the word toiKtv 
joined with a participle, see Phaedon p. 87. E. ioixtv cnrrofiav(p. 

° yvwatrai — k/iov x a P uv The construction has been ex¬ 
plained by Matthiae §. 349. 1.— o <ro<pbg Sy, that wise man forsooth, 
said ironically. 

XV. a y pot (fxtivarai ] That is, in what way, how he appears to 
me. For Socrates begins to show that Meletus is so inconsistent as 
both to deny and to affirm that Socrates believes in the existence of 
gods. 

b vpag 7rapyTt]<rdpr]v'] Etymol. Magn. TrapaiTtiaPat ovk tv- 
ptjTai tv xprjcrft t7ri tov aypaivoptvov tov apvtiaOai icai cltto- 
fidXXtaQai Kai py Stx^Oai, aXX’ £7ri tov aireiv, wg irapa Mt- 
vavSptp' rrapaiTovpai at yvwpyv txuv. wgrt 7 rtpiTTyv tlvai Tr)v 
•xpoQtaiv. Aristoph. Equitt. v. 37. 'iv S’ avrovg irapcuTrjowpsOa. 
Compare Ruhnk. on Tim. under the word. See also Burmann on 
Quint. Institt. Orat. III. 6. Muller on Cic. de Orat. I. 20, 90. 
Bremi on Nep. Attic. XII. 2. 

c Saipovia p'tv vop'i^tt—Salpovag Se ov vopi^ti] To ccu- 
poviov in Plato appears to be an adjective, as Cicero also understood, 
de Divinat. I. 54. Esse divinum quiddam, quod daemonion appellat, 
cui semper pareat. See Schleierm. on this passage ; Vol. II. p. 432 
foil. Schneid. on Xenoph. Memor. I. 1,2. Narey in the Classical 
Journal for 1817. N. XXX. p. 105. 

*Q£ wvrjtrag, — avayKa£optvog~] How much have you obliged 
me bii giving me an answer at length! Casaubon has observed on 
Pers. Sat. I. v. 112. that ovfjcrai, like the Latin juvare, often has the 
meaning of delectare and not (3oyQt~iv. 

e dXX’ ovv Saipovia ye vopiZ,w] These words are to be referred 
to what goes before, tif ovv icaiva tire rraXaid. 

f Siwpoaw tv ry avTiypa<py] ’A vTiypatyy is here the same as 
avTiopoaia, in C. III. ( note b ) that is, the bill of accusation. The 
plaintiff, on delivering the bill of accusation to the judges, was 
obliged to swear that he did not bring the accusation through malice. 
Meletus had taken this oath. 

g i)Toi Qeovg yt yyovptOa y Oewv TraiSag] Phaedo p. 76. A. 
■flTOi tm(TTdptvoi ye aurd ytyovaptv—y vartpov— dvapipvya- 
kovtcu. Gorg. p. 460. A. yroi 7 xportpov ye rj vartpov patiovra 

7 rapa <rov , Ibid. p. 476. E. , 

h Cjv Sri Kai Xeyovrai ] Gorg. p. 453. E. irdXiv S u It ri tiov 
avTwv rtxvuiv Xtyoptv, wvtrtp vvv Sr\ k. t. X. Phaed. p. 76. A. 


118 


NOTES ON THE 


fj ev rovTif) (xpovip) arcoXXvpEV, (ft7rep fcat Xap(3dvopev. La¬ 
ches p. 192. B. See Matth. Gr. §. 595. 

1 dig ov rov avrov—ovdepta pr)x av *l s(TTiv~\ The sense is : you 
will in no wise be able to persuade any one , that one and the same man 
believes in spiritual and divine things, and at the same time disbelieves 
in the existence of spirits, gods, and heroes. It is evident from the 
preceding argument that the adjectives are opposed to the nouns 
substantive. 

XVI. a ’A\Xd yap, w avfysc] Socrates, having concluded the 
material part of his defence, now commences the discussion of other 
points which bear upon the subject. He first complains of the 
danger of his being sacrificed to the hatred of the multitude; but, at 
the same time maintains, a good man ought to consider virtue and 
justice as of more importance than life itself. 

b o ep,e aipr]<rsi] lhat is, which will cause my condemnation. For 
aipiiv diicrjv and aipslv nva nvog signify to gain a suit against a 
party. Whence ot iXovrsg and oi eaXwKorsg, are opposed in De- 
mosthen. in Midiam. p. 518. ed. Reisk. p. 15. ed. Buttm. 

c aXX’ r/—diafBoXrj te icai <pOovog ] Fischer has observed that 
these words might have been omitted, since the preceding pronoun 
tovto already expressed the same idea; but they are added to ex¬ 
press the former idea with more emphasis. 

d ovdev dk deivov, pr] ev ipoi ory] That is, there is no danger 
of my being the last who will be condemned by the envy and hatred of 
the multitude. Compare Phaedo p. 84. ovS'ev deivov, pi) <po(3r]0y. 

e sir ovic aiffxvvei] On the particle elra used in interrogations 
to indicate astonishment and indignation, see Valcken. on Phcen. 
v. 549. Viger. p. 395. Buttmann Gr. §. 136. 

f ei o"ei delv Kivdvvov v7roXoyi%E<j0ai —] Crito. c. 8. icav fyai- 
vuipeQa adiKa avra kpya^opevoi, pi) ov Sey v7roXoylZecr9ai ovr’ ti 
Qvr)<7KEiv dei rrapapEvovrag icai rjavx'iav ayovrag ovre aXXo 
onovv 7rd(TXEiv 7rpo rov ddiKeZv. Compare the conclusion of this 
chapter. 

B orov n Kai opiKp'ov cnpeXog torti/] Euthyphro p. 4. E. ovdev 
y<ip dv pov djieXog eitj. Legg. IX. p. 856. C. nag yap dvrjp, ov 
Kai apiKp'ov b(peXog. Crito c. 5. ei n Kai apiKpov rjpwv oipsXog. 
See Hemsterh. on Lucian, Timon. c. 55. Kuster. on Aristoph. 
Eccles. v. 53. Valcken. on Herodot. VIII. 68. 

h Kai o rrjg Okndog vlo^] Allusion is here made to Iliad. <t". v. 
90 foil.—7rapa to alaxpov n vrcopeZvai, in comparison with en¬ 
during any thing disgraceful—rather than submit to any thing dis~ 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


119 


graceful, that is, lest it should be said that he did not care for the 
death of his friend Putroclus. For 7r apd with an accusative some¬ 
times indicates a comparison ; see Matthiae Gr. §. 588. c. 

1 avTiKd yap to t, (ftijGi, peQ* "E/cropa] These words are in¬ 
troduced in a parenthesis, which will account for their want of strict 
connection with ihe context. 

k o 8e ravr a.KovGaq'] "o 8s is inserted in consequence of the 
length of the sentence. The regular grammatical construction would 
be : 'o£ togovtov tov kiv8vvov KaTe<ppovi]Gev, wqt£ — aKovaaq 

ravra — wXtyupr/Ge. This is, therefore, an anacoluthia. Similar 
passages are given by Matthiae Gr. $. 626. 

1 avrUa — reOvaltjv ] Iliad, g . v. 98. and 104. 

m py avrov out —] Heusdius Specim. Grit. p. 12. thought the 
reading ought to be otov, of which there is no need. For py has 
often the force of an interrogation where a denial is-expected or 
wished for. See Hermann on Viger. p. 789. Gregor. Corinth, p. 
162 et 824. ed. Schaef. 

n r] yyyGapevoq] In order that y may not appear to be intro¬ 
duced improperly, it is to be observed that the same construction is 
not observed in the subsequent part of the sentence, since the words 
y vi t apxovrog Ta^Oy are added, when we should have expected 
y v tt dpxovrog KtXtvGOelg. For a similar construction see De- 
mosthen. He Rhodior. libert. p. 197. ed. Reisk. el yup re ttov icat 
K£KpuTT]K£ ryg 7r6Xtiog (3aGiXevg, y rovg 7r ovypoTarovg tojv 'EA- 
Xy vojv Trt'iGaq y ov8apu>g aXXtog KSKparyKev. 

0 7rpo tov aiGxpov ] Phaedo p. 99. A. el py dacaioTepov tppyv 
Kai KaXXtov elvat rrpo tov cptvytiv. Crito c. 16. pyre tt al8ag 
7 T£pl nXeiovog 7roeov pyre to Z,i)v pyre aXXo py8ev 7rpo tov 
diicaiov. See C. XVII. 7rpd ovv t&v KaKcov. On the sentiment 
compare Crito c. 12. at the end, where the question is respecting 
the obedience to be paid to the laws of our country. 

XVII. tt detva civ ttyv elpyaGpsvog ] Heindorf, on Gorg. p. 
518. E., says that epydZeGOat in this passage, is used for 7roteiv. 
But ipyaZtGQai is stronger in its signification than ttoiuv. I should 
have perpetrated a great crime . 

b ti, ore pev pe — rort pev ov Ik. — roi; 8k Oeov — evravQa 8s —] 
See Buttmann on Demosthen. Mid. p. 155., where he has given 
many similar instances. He remarks that when there is a double 
ptv and a double 8s in the sentence, the whole becomes more em¬ 
phatic. In a similar manner, Isocrat. Areopag. 18. 7rap’ olg pev 
yap pyTS (pvXaK)) pyre Z,ypia tCjv toiovtojv KaOsGTyKe, pyQ' at 


120 


NOTES ON THE 


Kplaeig aKpifleZg elm, tt apd rovrotg per dia^QelpetrOai Kai rag 
exieiKeZg t&v (J>v<T£0)v‘ ottov de pyre XaOeZr roZg adiKovtu ptfdior 
tort, pyre (parepoZg yeroperoig avyyrwpyg TVx*Zr, erravOa d’ 
i^iryXovg ylyvevQai rag KaKoydelag. Observe the difference of 
moods, eperor k at eKivdvvevor, and X'nroipi. The indicative refers 
to a matter which really happened ; the optative to one which may 
possibly happen. 

c Kai ir II oridaig — AyXdp] On the campaigns of Socrates see 
Laert. II. 22 foil. Athenaeus IV. 15. AElian. III. 17. Cicero de 
Divin. I. 54. 

d a ttuQGjv ry parrely] That is, rov Oeov. 

e doKeZr yap eiderai — older] The phrase at full length would 
be : eari yap kiceZvo (namely, to Oavarov dedierai) doKeZr eiderai 
& ovk older. On the third person, older, put indefinitely, see Her¬ 
mann on Viger. p. 725. Schaefer on Lambert. Bos. p. 476. Porson 
on Eurip. Orest, v. 308. and Matth. §. 294. 2. Charmid. p. 167. B. 
el dvraror eon to a olde ical py older eiderai. Rep. VI. p. 506. 
C. oioperor rav9 ’, a oleTai, IQeXeir Xeyeir. Lysis p. 212. B. 
Crito, C. X., about the middle. 

f Kai tovto 7ru>g ovk ap.] Kai is in this passage to be pro¬ 
nounced with emphasis, as is often the case in sentences indicating 
opposition. Fischer erroneously thought that tovto was put for did 
tovto : it is the nominative case. A little further on, the words y 
tov oleuOai eiderai signify, which consists in one's thinking that he 
knows what he does riot know. 

s rovTip dr ] With these words <{>aiyr elrai or elyr may be 
understood. Further on, ovrw is used, because ovk eidwg lias the 
same signification as wgTrep ovk olda. 

h irpd ovr tw r KaKwr—ovde <pev%opai] This construction is 
remarkable. For QofieZaOai and <pevyeir irpo twv kokuiv — a py 
olda, are used instead of (f>o(3eZ(TQai paXXov rd kukcl a olda on 
icaicd i(TTir y Tavra a py olda el ayaOa orra rvyxarei. On this 
use of the preposition irpo see C. XVI. note (°). 

1 a >gT£ ovd’ ei pe rvr caplere—ryr apxyr] ’Apxyr is at all. 
See Hermann on Viger. p. 723. A little further on, diroKreZrai, 
as in C. XVIII., is to condemn to death by their votes: in which 
sense cnroKTelreir is also used by Xenoph. Mem. IV. 8, 5., where 
it is opposed to cnroXveir. The structure of the sentence is re¬ 
markable, ei — atyiETE, ei poi — el noire, el ovr d^ioire, the particle 
ovr indicating that the speaker returns to what he has been saying 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


121 


before, on which use of the word, see Sturz, Lexic. Xenoph. III. 
p. 358. Schweigh. Lexic. Polyb. p. 416. 

k ’A vvTip aTU(TTr](ravTtQ ] ’AttigtCiv, cuticttoq, cnricrrla , are 
said not only of those who do not believe, who have no faith in others, 
but also of those who refuse to comply with the demands of others 
because they disbelieve them, 

1 k<f <pre —0i\o<7o0£tv] On this construction see Matthiae §. 479. 

“ aarcd^opai p'ev icai 0i\o>] 9 A<nrd^e<r9ai is to salute with an 

embrace, <piXeZv lo salute with a kiss. In this passage these words 
signify: with grateful and joyful mind I salute and reverence your 
kindness and clemency. Lysid. p. 217. B. avayicd^eTai tie ye crCopa 
did vocrov iarpiK-yv cunra^eaQai icai ipiXeZv. Legg. III. 689. A. 
to tie rrovypbv icai atiacov tioKovv elvai ipiXeZ re icai cnnra^erai. 

n /cat kvtieiKvvpevog ] This word is used in the same manner in 
C. IX. at the end, rip Oeip fiorjOuiv evtie'acvvpai, on ovk eon 
< Jo<p6c . 

° eig (jotyiav icai la^vv] icrxyv is used here not in the sense of 
power, but of greatness and strength of mind. For the subsequent 
words show that t<r%uv is opposed to a desire of riches, honours, and 
praise. 

p icai vewrepip — rrotrjiT w] On this rather uncommon construction, 
see Matth. §. 415. obs. 1. Buttm. §. 120. 2. 3. Compare Yiger. 
p. 289. 

q pdXXov tie roZg aaroZg, 'Scrip pov syy.] Compare C. XXX. 
about the middle, /cat %aXt7 rwrepoi ecrovrai, ocnp vewrepoi elm. 
Gorg. p. 458. A. peZ^ov yap avro dyaOov rjyovpai , ocupnep peZ^ov 
ayadSv ecrnv avrov arraXXayrjvai icaicov rov peylcrrov r) aXXov 
aVaWa^at, where likewise before peZ^ov we may understand to - 
< rovrip . Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 3, 14. Aristoph. Nubb. v. 1415. ed* 
Wolf. Rep. V. p. 472. A. ocnp av, e<pr], roiavra 7 rXeiio Xeyyg, 
rjrrov d^tOrjcrei v<f r)pu>v, where before tjttov we must understand 
ToaovTtp. The same construction is used by the Latin writers. 
Liv. II. 51. Quo plures erant, major caedes fuit. Ovid’s Epist. 
IV. 19. Venit amor gravius, quo serius. 

T rip 6eip vTTrjpecriav^ See C. IX. tiia rrjv rov Qeov Xa- 
rpelav, which might also have been tiia rrjv Tip 6eip Xarpelav, 
since verbal nouns are frequently constructed with the same case as 
the verb from which they are derived. See Matthiae, $ 367. 1. 

• prjtik ovroj mpStipa ] M rjtik is here introduced after pyre, be¬ 
cause these words form, as it were, a new member of the sentence. 

M 


122 


NOTES ON THE 


The common reading pyre aXXov nvog ovtoj o<j>obpa, appears to 
have been inserted by some grammarian to explain the sense. Com¬ 
pare C. XXVI. at the end, ovk toff o ti paXXov — 7rps7rsi ovrwg 
ojg tov toiovtov av8pa sv TrpvTavsiiy oiTuo9ai > and the note on 
that passage. 

*■ Kai rd\\o aya9d toIq dv9pu)7roig aTravra] The common 
reading, Kai rdXXa rdyaOd, is a very bad one, for it signifies: and 
all the other things, namely, those which are good and useful to men ; 
which is opposed to the whole scope of the passage. 

u el psv ovv — diatpOelpu )—, ravr av sir] /3X.] See C. XII. 
note ( n ). 

x ri nrelOtoQt — y prf\ Gorg. p. 476. D. <pd9i r) pi) a spuria. 
Ibid. p. 475. E. Rep. V. p. 475. B. tovto drj <pd9i, i) prj. 

y ovk av iroir)(TovTOQ~\ On av construed with a future, see 
note, page 28. Compare Matth. §. 598. D. 

z ovff ti p'tXkti) TToWaKig rt9vdvai] That is, not even if I were 
to be several times dead. It is worthy of remark that the Greeks, 
when they wish to lay stress on the bitterness of death, use the state 
and condition of death itself for the pains which precede it. Crito, 
C. I. rj to 7r\olov atfiKrai it c A rj\ov, ov dtl a<piKoptvov Tt9vavai 
pt ; which is a more emphatic expression than ano9vr]OKtiv pt. 
Crito, C. XIV. wg ovk ayavaKTwv ; ti Stoi rt9vavai os. Apol. 
C. XXIX. 7fo\v paWov alpovpai wdt a7roXoyr]odptvog rt9vdvat 
rj tKtivwg £rjv. C. XXXI. outtw tp%opai ol l\9ovra pt del rt- 
Qvavai . C. XXXII. eyw ptv yap 7roXXaKig t9sXo) Tt9vavai, si 
ravf eorlv dXr]9rj. Compare Demosth. Philipp. IV. p. 138. De 
rebus Chersones. p. 102. De Coron. p. 301. nwg ovk aVoXwXsvai 
iroXXoiKig tori diKaiog. 

XVIII. a pi) 9opv[3eiTs'] Socrates now enters upon another 
subject. He proceeds to show that his condemnation and death 
will be a great loss and injury to the Athenian state. 

b ov yap o’iopai 9spirov tlvai'] That is, I do not think it consistent 
with the laws of divine wisdom, aptivovi avdpi is used instead of the 
common construction apsivto avdpa, because these words are closely 
joined with 9spLTov slvai.—aTroKTtivsiv is to cause a person to be 
condemned and executed : i&Xavvtiv to cause a person to be punished 
with exile: artpa^tiv to cause a person to lose either the whole, or at 
least, the most important, rights and privileges of citizenship. There 
were three kinds or degrees of anpia, as is shown by Ed. Meier de 
Bonis Damnat. p. 101 sqq. 137 sqq. 
c aXXa xoXv paXXov ] Understand oiopai psya KaKov. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 123 

d ttoXXou dew eyw] On this construction of dsw, see Heind. on 
Theast. p. 364. 

* M tl VZap. — KaraipyQicrdptvoi] That is, lest ye rashly reject 
this benefit granted to you by Apollo, who ordered me to rebuke your 
errors and vices, and to exhort you to the pursuit of virtue. The 
dative vptv depends on the noun doaig, on which construction, see 
C. XVII. note (*). 

f 7 rpoQKtiptvov ry 7ro\a] The interpretation of these words 
depends on the word pvwKog, which signifies both a spur, and a 
gad-fly, that is, a kind of larger fly, which annoys and infuriates 
cattle; on which see Blomfield Gloss, on ^Eschyl. Prom. v. 583. 
We are disposed to interpret pvourog in this passage as a gad-fly, 
as more consistent with the words ei ical ysXoiorepov t’nrtiv ; and 
because TrpogKtio9ai, TrpogTf.9tiKsvai, and TrpogKa9iZ,tiv, are more 
applicable to a gad-fly than to a spur. For the words TrpoQKtiptvov 
ry rroXsi vtco rov 9eov do not merely signify : added or given to the 
state by the god, which is the opinion of some ; but 7rpoQKsZ<r0ai vtto 
9eov includes the notion of the pressing and urging, so that the 
proper version is : given by the god to urge on the state: on which 
use of the word, see Thomas Mag. under the word, and Sturz. 
Lexic. Xenoph. T. III. p. 725. This is often said of animals pro¬ 
voking and annoying others, but I have never seen a passage in 
which it is applied to a horseman. In nearly the same manner 
the word irpoQicaQiZujv may be explained, which Socrates uses in 
reference to the metaphor which he has just employed.—Nwffeortpy 
is interpreted by Suidas by (3padvrep<p. 

e olov by poi—roiovrSv nva ] roiovrov riva is added by 
apposition to the pronoun olov, in order to unite what follows the 
more closely with this part of the sentence. 

h vpeig S’lffuig—pySicog av arc oktsiv airs] Remark the number of 
participles in this passage ; on which, see C. XIV. note ( n ). Wolf 
thus translates the passage: But you, offended perhaps, as sleepers when 
they are roused, will strike me, and, complying with Anytus, will 
rashly slay me: afterwards you will sleep uninterruptedly for the 
remainder of your lives, unless the god, caring for your welfare, shall 
send you some one else. The former metaphor is still continued. 

* olog virb rov 9. — dedoa9ai] On the construction see Matth. 
§. 535. 

k ov yap dv9po)Triv(p loifce] That is, it does not appear consistent 
with human motives. For men rather attend to their own affairs 
than to those of strangers, and consult their own safety rather than 


124 


NOTES ON THE 


that of others. On the construction of avi\t(r9ai with a genitive, 
see Matth. §. 358. Compare 550. 

1 eyd) rrapexopai rov pdprvpa ] Lest any difficulty should arise 
from the article, it may be remarked that these words are to be 
taken thus : 6 paprvg, ov rrapexopai, rj Trevia , iKavog paprvg 
eariv, dig aXrjOrj Xeyoo. 

XIX. a €7 riKiopipdujv iypaiparo] Socrates alludes to the words 
of the civTUipoaiaf'ETtpa de daipovia. , 'E7riK0jp(pdeXv is to laugh, 
to mark for ridicule, since KiopipdeXv and diaKwpipdelv have the same 
signification as diacrvpeiv, aKiowTeiv, %\tva?etv. See Pollux IX. 
148. The reason is, that in the old comedy the vices of men were 
marked out, and the men as it were, stigmatised. 

b naXai av cnroX. — ovt av vp. dj<j>. — ovt av epavrov] Socrates 
gives a similar account of his daipoviov in Theag. p. 128. Com¬ 
pare Apol. C. XXXI. Xenophon Mem. I. 1. Cicero de Divin.1.54. 
Hoc nimirum est illud, quod de Socrate accepimus, quodque ab ipso 
in libris Socraticorum saepe dicitur, esse divinum quiddam, quod dae- 
monion appellat, cui semper ipse paruerit, nunquam impellenti, 
saepe revocanti. The reading ovt* av epavrov is erroneous. For 
in such sentences av is frequently repeated. Phileb. p. 43. A. drjXov 
dr/ tovto ye, w Suucpareg, dig ovre fjdovrj yiyvoir’ av iv rip Toiovrip 
ttots, ovt av Tig Xv7rrj ; Xenoph. Hier. V. 3. avev yap rrjg 7ro- 
\£o>£ ovt av aio^eaOai dvvairo ovt av evdaipoveTv. 

c /cat ei peXXei oX. Herm. on Viger. p. 832. has shown a 

distinction between Kai ei and ei ical. He says that “ Kai ei is even 
if; the icai refers to the condition, which is thus indicated to be un¬ 
certain : even then , if. Therefore Kai ei is used of what we suppose 
true, not of what we declare to be true, for in the latter case ei Kai is 
used. On the other hand, ei Kai is although ; and Kai, being put 
after the conditional particle, is not referred to it and does not in¬ 
dicate that the condition itself is uncertain. Therefore ei Kai sig¬ 
nifies that the thing exists actually, and is not merely supposed. 
But ei Kai is also taken, not as although, but as if even, in which 
case Kai ought not to be joined with ei , but with some of the follow¬ 
ing words. The Latin etium si is used in a similar manner.” 

XX. a tyopriKa pev Kai ^iicavucd] Oopruca properly signifies 
heavy and troublesome : hence things spoken with arrogance. Hesy- 
chius : (popriKa • ra yeXoTa.—Ai KaviKog is interpreted by antient 
glossaries, a speaker in courts of justice, a pleader. But since ad. 
vocates usually exaggerate, embellish, and even speak presump¬ 
tuously, duzaviKd was applied to what was disagreeable, troublesome, 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


125 


presumptuous, absurd, as Theaet. p. 128. E. Lucian. Somn. 17. cog 
paicpbv rb kvvTTviov leal diKciviKov. The common translation, 
forensic, judicial, is without meaning. 

b GPXVV oiidsfiiav — rjpZa] That is, I never Jilled any public 
office. flovXevscv signifies, as in many other passages, to be a 
member of the senate of five hundred. Fifty members were chosen 
from these five hundred to preside over the senate for thirty-five days, 
under the name of rrpvrdveig. Ten of these fifty were chosen by 
lot to preside over the senate for a week. These were called 7rpoa- 
dpoi, and their chief either hn<JTa.TT]Q or imaTaTyg t&v Trpoedpoov, 
as in iEschines against Ctesiph. p. 380. Vol. II. or iiTLcrrarriQ iv 
rip Srjpip, as Xenoph. Mem. I. 1, 18., or iTn<rrdTr]g iv raig skk\t]~ 
oiaig, as Memor. IV. 4, 2. The matter has been more fully 
discussed by Schoemann de Coraitiis Atheniensium, cap. VII. 
Socrates was s 7rtoTarj;g of his tribe, Antiochis, when the question 
was brought forward of punishing the generals. How he acquitted 
himself in this office is related by Xenophon, Hellen. I. 7, 14. 15. 
38. The generals alluded to are the ten (which was the usual 
number in a war) who gained a naval victory over the Lace¬ 
daemonians off the Arginusae Islands, b. c. 406. After the battle, 
instead of attending in person to the burial of the slain, they left for 
that office Ta%idpxcu> For this they were publicly prosecuted and 
condemned to death. See Xenoph. Hellen. Lysias c. Eratosth. p. 
72. ed. Brem. As to whether they all suffered death, see Valckenar. 
on Xenoph. Mem. I. 18, p. 316. ed. Schneid.— avcuptZaQai, to 
take up the bodies of the dead for burial,—rovg iic vavpa\iag is said 
instead of rovg iv vavpaxcq- For in phrases like this, compounded 
of the article and a noun with a preposition, that preposition is 
used which is most suitable to the verb connected with the phrase. 

e rjpcov f/ <pv\rj ’Avnoxio] Perhaps one might have expected 
rj ’Avtiox'iQi the article being repeated, as Schaefer wished it to be 
corrected, in Demosth. Appar. T. II. p. 386. But compare Me- 
non. p. 70. B. oi rov aov iraipov ’ApiGT'nnrov ‘jtoXZtcu Aapt<r- 
caioi. Phaedon. p. 57. A. tCjv itoXitoiv ^Xiaaiwv ovdeig, in 
which also the proper name is added without the article. 

d aGpoovg Kpiveiv ] That is, to collect the votes at the same time 
respecting all the accused, piq, iprjipip (see Memor. 1,1,18.), whereas 
the law ordered the votes to be given separately for each, tcpivtiv 
dixa. eKaiTTov, as we are told by Xenophon. Hellen. I. at the end. 
Therefore he adds Trapavopiog, i. e. Trapd rovg vopovg , as Xenoph. 
Mem. I. 1, 18. IV. 4, 2. 


126 


NOTES ON THE 


e wg tv t. v<rr. xp. — Xenoph. Hellen. I. 7, 12. Kai ob 
7 ro\X<p %pov<p vartpov ptrtptXe rolg ’AOyvaioig. 

f fjvavmwQyv^ He would not put it to the vote. See Xenoph. 
Mem. IV. 4, 2. Hellen. I. 7, 9. 14. 15. 

b troipwv ovrwv—rwv prjroputv ] The words tvSeiKVvvai and 
dirdytiv signify to denounce to the magistrates ( tvSeiKvvvai ), and lead 
away (cnraytiv), a person caught in the act of committing an offence , 
in order that he may be immediately punished: which acts are called 
’ivStigig and cnraywyrj. That the reading d-irayeiv is to be pre¬ 
ferred to the common reading viraytiv, which Fischer endeavoured 
to defend, appears by those passages in which iv8ti%ig and dna- 
ywyr] are joined. Demosthen. against Leptin. p. 504. 24. ed. 
Reisk. tlvai 8k ical h'8ti£,tiq Kai airaywydg. Against Timocrat. 
p.745. oi)5’ o(Tu)v tv8ti%lg earl rivi ?/ airaywyr], 7rpogeyeypcnrT* 
dv tv roXg vopoig, rov 8’ kv8eix@svra y cnraxOtvra Sytrdvrwv oi 
svStKa kv rip %vX<p. Against Theocrin. p. 1325.9. tav rig rroiy 
rd rwv <JVKO<pavrovvTii)v , tv8u%iv avrwv tlvai ical cncaywyiyv . 

h ol rpiaKovra — psra7rep\pdptvoi ps irkprcrov aurov] When 
the Athenians were conquered by Lysander at ^Egospotami, and the 
city seized on, in the first year of the 94th Olympiad (B. C. 404), he 
appointed thirty tyrants, who are sometimes called ol rpiaKovra, as 
here, and in Xenoph. Mem. IV. 4. 3.; sometimes rpiaKovra Travrwv 
dpxovrtg avroKparoptg, as in Plato ep. VII. j sometimes ol 7repi 
Kpiriav, as in Laert. II. 24.— 7rsp7r tov avrov, that is, me with 
four others . Xen. Hellen. 2. 17. ypeQrj — dsKarog avrog, that is, 
he himself with nine others. Thucyd. I. 46. irkpirrog avrog, where 
the scholiast says: avri rov avrog per aXXwv rtaaapwv, Me- 
letus was among the number, according to Andocid. De Myster. 
p. 46. ed. Reisk. The circumstance is spoken of by Lysias adv. 
Agorat. p. 106. Brem. lare pkv yap rovg Ik HaXapXvog rwv rco- 
Xirwv KopivQtvrag oloi yoav ical oaoi, ical o'iip oXeOpip vtto rwv 
rpiaKovra cnrwXovro. Also c. Eratosthen. p. 77. 6 8k — kXOwv 
ptra rwv ovvapxovrwv tig ’SaXapXva Kai ’EXtvaXva 8k rpia- 
Kocriovg rwv ttoXitwv cnryyaytv tig to Stopwrypiov Kai piq, 
\prj(p(p avrwv cnrdvrwv Qdvarov Kartiprj<pi(raTO. 

* fig rr/v 0d\ov] The OoXog was a public building near to 
fiovXtvrrjpiov rwv 7 rtvraKoaiwv, according to Pausan. I. 5., in 
which the Prytanes dined and sacrificed every day. It derived its name 
from its resemblance to a tortoise. See Harpocration and Hesych. 
under the word, and Pollux. On. VIII. 155.—Leon, born at Sa- 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


127 


lamis, but a citizen of Athens, had gone into voluntary exile to 
Salamis, to avoid falling a victim to the Tyrants, who coveted his 
wealth. See Xenoph. Hellen. II. 3, 39. 

k avairXrjaai airiwv] That is, to stain with guilt and crimes ; 
in order that as many citizens as possible might appear to have 
betrayed the cause of liberty by taking part with the Tyrants. On 
the word avaTcipnrXavai in the sense of polluting and staining, see 
Ruhnken on Tim. Glossar. p. 30. 

1 ro 7rav ^e\ei] That is, is altogether, by all means, a care to me. 
So Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 6, 13. to tv av dicupkpei. — iKTrXyTTeiv, to 
strike and move one so that he becomes, as it were, beside himself. 

m VX^t JLr l v d 7riujv oi/cafe] That is, I went straightway. See 
Matth. §. 559. c. 

XXI. n ei tTrpaTTOv rd Srjpoaia — iTroiovpyv] The aorist 5ia - 
yevlcrOai av, having preceded, one might have expected ei E7r pa£a 
— liroiyadpriv. But the imperfect is correctly used, since he speaks 
not only of past time but also of the present; that is, of a past 
action continuing to the present time. In English, we should say : 
Do you think that I could have lived through so many years, if I had 
continued to take a part in public affairs, and as an honest man stood 
by the side of justice, and, as it was my duty to do, regarded this above 
all other considerations'! — ovdl yap av aXXog avOp. ovdelg. Un¬ 
derstand dieylvero. 

b toiovtoq <pavovpai] The pronoun toiovtoq is explained by 
the words which follow it a little further on : ovdevl ttwttots %vy- 
X(oprj(rag ovdev tt apd to diKaiov. 

c ifiovg ptaOriTag slvai] Alcibiades and Critias are probably 
alluded to; whose vices were said to have arisen from the instruction 
of Socrates. See Xenoph. Mem. I. 2, 12 sqq. 

d ei dk rig—briQvpel a.Koveiv’] Socrates calls tcl iavrov what 
he was enjoined to do by Apollo ; namely, that he should detect and 
rebuke the errors of men, and exhort his fellow citizens to the pur¬ 
suits of virtue. 

e xP*lf jiaTa ! l ' iV Xa/i/3dvwv] An allusion to the avarice of the 
sophists. See notes on C. IV. 

f 7 r apgxw epavTov Ipwrav] That is, I give an opportunity of 
interrogating me. The subsequent words, ical lav Tig foiXyrai an. 
aicoveiv, are to be explained Kai iravri, ogrtg dv povXyTai aic. 
For lav Tig is put elegantly for ogng av. 

B ovk av dtKaiwg ttjv airiav inrex 01 ! 1 ^] That is, this cannot 


m 


NOTES ON THE 


rightly be attributed to me. A Ir'iav vi is properly used in a 
bad sense, of one who is deservedly blamed. T ovriov, masculine, 
is joined with rrjv air lav vTrexoipi. 

XXII. a rovro — 7rpoQreraicTcu~\ That is, ro l^erd^eiv. 
b icat fvsXeyfcra] EveXeyicra is generally applied to what may 
easily be refuted. But here it means what may easily be examined to 
find out tohether it is true or false. For t\ey%eiv not only signifies 
to refute, but also to examine with the design of convicting another of 
error. The word may therefore be rendered (after Serranus) easy to 
be refuted if they are not true. . 

c el be fi/} avroi ijOeXov'] Fischer has erroneously written el ye 
fir). For el be may follow eire, in the same manner as bk by itself 
may come after re, and ovbe after ovre. In C. XXXII. we have : 
Kal elre bij pybeptla alaQycrlg ecrriv—el b’ av olov arrobrjpiicrai. 

d rrdptiaiv — ivravQoT] Hesychius : svravQor evravOa. Er« 
roneously. For as Trapelvai eig rivet totcov is not merely said for 
Trapelvai tv nvi romp, but is used in such a manner as if two sen¬ 
tences were joined together; that is, it signifies to come to a place 
and be engaged there ; so evravOol by itself is not put for evravOa 
but Trapelvai evravOol signifies to come hither and be present here. 
Examples of this construction are given by Valcken. on Herodot. I. 
21. Heind. on Phaed. p. 4. Protagor. p. 310. A. ri oiiv ov biTjyrjao) 
ijpuLv ryv %vvov<rlav, el p,rj ere n KUiXvti, KaOi^opevog evravOol, 
that is, taking your seat to this place and sitting here with us. 

e K p'lrwv ovroffi] Crito is the same person whose name is given 
to the following dialogue of Plato. He is called rjXuciwrris, or of 
the same age of Socrates ; and byporyg, that is, of the same demus, 
namely, ’ AXiottskt). See Harpocration, Hesychius and Stephanus 
Byzant. under ’AXwr'efc rj. 

f Aviravlag] Lysanias, father of the Socratic ^Eschines, is called 
6 Ijtprjrriog, from brjpog 'S.tpyrrbg, which was brjfiog tpvXijg ’Ak a- 
fiavrlbog. See Harpocrat. Hesych. Stephan, under that word. — 
Antipho is called KrjQnnevg, from brjpog Kycpiffog, which was 0vX?) 
’Ept xQyibog. See Harpocrat. under Ky^imevg. 

K aXXot ro'ivvv ovroi — ] Heindorf remarks that rolvvv, there¬ 
fore, makes the sentence unintelligible. He conjectures that the 
better reading would be dXXoi re evravOol. There is no occasion 
for any change, for rolvvv, as the Latin jam vero, is often used, not 
(TvXXoyi<rriKu>g, but icara(3ariKu>g. 

h NiKoorparof] Respecting this person and Theodotus nothing 
has been recorded, as far as we are aware.—Respecting Demodocus, 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


129 


father of Theages, see Theages, p. 127. E. Of Paralus, who is not 
to be confounded with his namesake, the son of Pericles, nothing is 
known.—Adimantus is the brother of Plato, often mentioned in the 
Rep. See II. p. 357—368. VIII. p. 548. D. E. and elsewhere.— 
Of ^Eantodorus nothing is known.—Apollodorus is known to have 
been most devoted to Socrates. See Phaedo p. 59. A. p. 117. D. 
Xenoph. Mem. III. 11, 17.— KaraSeTaQai is to overcome and per¬ 
suade any one by entreaties. For the sense is this : Theodotus cannot 
beseech his brother Nicostratus, not to accuse me and bear testimony 
against me. 

' iyco 7rap«^;a>|0d>] That is, I yield to him the privilege of 
doing this. For no one was permitted to interrupt the accused 
while defending himself, and by irrelevant matters to abridge the 
time granted for his defence; which was measured by the clepsydra. 
The accuser was bound to go through all that had reference to his 
side of the question, before the defendant commenced his answer to 
the charge. 

k T(p dicupOeipovTi] The apposition here marks the ironical tone 
of the speaker, C. XII. Crito : ical <rv — (pyueig ravra t roi&v d'ocaia 
Trpd.TTf.lv, 6 ry cikyQtiq, rrjg apeTrjg f7ripe\6pievog ; Euthypr. p. 
3. A. M sXrjTog ?<xa >g TcpioTOV ptev ypag etcicaQaipei rovg tu>v veiov 
rag (3\d<TTag Sia^OtipovTag, X>g tpycn. More examples are given 
by Valcken. on Phceniss. p. 752. 

1 Xoyov exoiev /3orj0ovvTsg ] That is, would have some object to 
attain in defending me : namely, that they might not appear to have 
been intimate with an impious and depraved man, and that they 
might not be accounted wicked themselves. 

m ol tovtojv TrpogyKovTeg] A participle joined with a genitive 
like a substantive : on which construction see Lobeck on Ajac. v. 
358. Schaefer on Gregor. Corinth, p. 139. 

n dXX’ fi tov opQov Tt zeal d'ncatov] The form aXX’ y is well 
known to be used in the sense of unless, generally when a negative 
goes before. See Bergler on Aristophan. Equitt. v. 777. An ex¬ 
cellent explanation of this construction is given by Herm. on Viger. 

p. 812. 

XXIII. a ra%a S’ dv Tig ayavaKTrjcreitv'] Socrates now pro¬ 
ceeds to give his judges an explanation of the grounds of his firmness 
and fortitude ; and he shows why he will not follow the example of 
others by attempting to move their pity. For, first, he says that 
such a course would be unworthy of the estimation in which he is 
held by men; secondly, that it would be against the laws. 


130 


NOTES ON THE 


b iXarrio—aywva ciyivvi^optvog'] That is, engaged, in a trial 
attended ivith less danger . So Euthyphro p. 3. E. ay(ovi%e(rOai 
8'iktjv. It was the custom at Athens for the defendants to bring 
into court their children, and even their wives, to excite the pity of 
the judges; as is also evident from Aristophan. Plut. v. 383. 
Vesp. v. 566 sq. 

c iyu) 8k ov8kv apa t. 7t.] 8k apa in such passages indicates that 
to do contrary to what has been already mentioned is absurd, and by 
no means to be approved of. The expression involves what logicians 
call the reductio ad absurdum, whether the speaker enuntiates his 
own opinion or that of another person. Examples have been col¬ 
lected by Heindorf on Phaed. p. 68. A., to which the following may 
be added : Crito c. 12. i) 7 rpog pkv apa <roi rov rrartpa ovk k% 
iaov rjv r.b 8'ncaiov Kai rrpog 8tGTr6rr)v, ti croi S.>v irvy^avtv, 
t*>gre drrtp •nao'^oig ravra Kai avrirroitlv.—rrpbg 8k rrjv tt arpida 
apa Kai rovg vopovg i^sarai aoi; compare Crito C. VI. and 
C. XII. Rep. X. 600. D. aXXd II purayopag pkv apa—Kai IIpo- 

8ucog - kxi ravry ry ao<p(q, ovrcu atyoSpa <pi\ovvrai —, "Oprj- 

pov 8 apa oi in r’ sksIvov— y 'H <rio8ov pa\fs(p8eTv av rcepCiovrag 
euov; Apol. C. XXVII. 7 toXXj) pevr av pe (pi\o\pv%ia ?%oe, ei 
ovrcog a\6yi<TTog tipi —• aXXoj 8k apa avrdg oiaovai pq,8’n»)g. 

d avOaSkarepov av nrpog pe This is said of judges who 

should refuse to acquit a defendant, although they might be expected 
to do so from the goodness and justice of his cause, because he 
would not implore and supplicate their mercy. Further on, after ti 
8 ovv understand rig vputv ovrtog 

e to rov Opypov ] Odyss. XIX. v. 163., where Penelope asks 
Ulysses, whom she had not recognised, to relate from what race he 
is sprung, adding to her request the words ov yap cnro 8pvog i<r<ri 
7ra\ai<parov ovS ’ a7ro 7 rerprjg. — Kai vitlg yt. In enumerating 
several things, it is customary to add yk to that noun to which the 
most weight and emphasis is attached : of which, examples have 
been collected by Heindorf on Hipp. Mai. § 47. Buttmann on Crito 
§. 7. n. 2. It is, therefore, incorrectly omitted by some MSS. in 
this passage. The three sons of Socrates were Lamprocles, Sophro- 
niscus, Menexenus. The eldest was Lamprocles, who is here called 
peipdKiov, a youth, but, in Phaedo 65., piyag. See Xenophon, 
Mem. II. 2, 1.; but the other two, whom their father here calls 
rraibia, are called by Plato also (Phsedo 65.), apiKpoi. Com¬ 
pare Valcken. on Theocrit. Adon. p. 349., who says that tqv 
piKpbv rrai8a was commonly called naibiov* 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


131 


f Kai tovto Tovvopa t^ovra] That is, having such a reputation 
for wisdom. Lest this should appear to be spoken arrogantly, he 
adds, ar’ ovv — xpsvdog. In which it must not be supposed that 
\pfvdeg ought to be written, for to the adjective aXy9lg is often op¬ 
posed the noun \ptvdog. Cratyl, p. 430. A. r\ to plv n avrwv 
aXrjOlg, to de \psvdog ; Euthydem, in the beginning, l%sXlyxeiv to 
del Xeyopevov bpo'nvg, lav re xf/evdog lav ts aXijQlg y ; which 
sentences have been pointed out by Heindorf. Aristoph. Ran. v. 628. 
\uj7T(t)g IpeTg IvravQa pySlv if/svdog. 

B tu)v 7roXX&v ai/0pw7rwv] That is, to excel the multitude. 

, h doKovvrag plv ti etvai] That is, who uppeared to be endowed 
with I know not what wisdom. See Matthiae §. 487. 5.— cog deivov 
n oloplvovg 7 reiaeoQai. I do not think that Heindorf was correct 
in connecting d>g with deivov, making ti>f signify very; of which 
signification the examples collected by him, on Cratyl. p. 41. and 
Phaedo p. 152., are inconclusive. In this passage tog is rather to be 
referred to olo/xlvovg, in this sense : as if in truth thinking that they 
will suffer something dreadful. For wg often indicates the cause 
and reason. We cannot therefore see, why Heindorf should say 
that, if djg be connected with the participle, are ought to have 
been written. These words are connected closely with the words 
immediately preceding, Qavpacna dl Ipyat^optvovg, in this sense : 
yet acting in a marvellous manner, as if they thought, §c. On the 
genitives wgirsp dOavarwv eooplv ojv, see Matth. Gr. §. 568. 3. 

* ovtoi yvvaiK&v ovSlv £.] On this use of the demonstrative 
pronoun after participles joined with the article, which makes the 
sense very emphatic, see Matthiae, § 468. h. 

k ovrt ypag xpn 'XoitTv'] The common reading vpag XP* **• 
is bad since these words immediately follow : ovt, av ypslg Troiioptv, 
vpag iTTiTphictiv. The sense is : neither does it become us to do such 
things , nor, if we were to do them, would it become you to permit or 
tolerate them. Similarly C. XXIV. ovre ypdg I0i£uv vpag Imop- 
keXv, ovO’ vpag Wi^eaQai. Kai otiovv elvai, that is, who appear to 
ourselves to possess even a little wisdom. So .Eschin. against Ctesiph. 
§. 5. twv Kai o 7 ro)govv 7r pog ra koivu 7 TpogtXrfXvOoTwv, that is, 
even in any manner. Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 6, 12. ovS’ otiovv Irrep- 
vyaOy, that is, not even a little. Aristoph. Plut. v. 385. kov <hoi- 
oovt —oiid* otiovv Tutv Uap(piXov. Phaedo, p. 78. I). pyrroTe 
peTa[3oXr)v Kai yvTivovv lvSlx eTai > Phileb. P* 59. C. p. 60. E. 
Hipp. Mai. p. 291. D. Legg. I. p. 639. A. In exactly the same 
manner as in this oassage. Rep. IV. p. 422. E. Kdv otiovv y. 


132 


NOTES ON THE 


Ibid. VII. p. 538. D. rovg Kai oiryovv ptrpiovg. The common 
reading Kai orrynovv tlvai is bad, since n thus does not belong to 
the verb eIvai, but is placed as in ojcwgriovv. 

1 ra kXttiva ravra Spcipara dgayovrog ] ’EXfttvd Spapara 
means tragedies in which the pity of the spectators is excited, tig- 
aytiv, to bring forward into the court, that is, when the accused 
introduces his wife, children, and relations, in tears, to dispose the 
minds of the judges to mercy. 

XXIV. a Xwpig St rfjg SoZyg] That is, but apart from re¬ 
putation: putting my own reputation out of the question. Crito, 
C. III. aXXd %wpi£ ptv rov kartpyuOai roiovrov k7nrrj- 
Stiov — tn St Kai noXXoig SoZio re. r. X., where see note. LeggJ 
p. 814. C. ovSapwg tvaxypov yiyvoir av rov tcaicov x^piQ rovro 
tv rroXti ojrov yiyvoiro. Sympos. p. 173. C. xw/Ot'c rov olto9ai 
uxf>tXsi<j9cu v7rtp(pvu>Q iog x a ip u) . Ibid. 184. 13. Herodot. I. 93. 
Xwpi£ rwv Aiyvirrhov ipywv.—cnroiptvytiv is to escape in safety, 
to be acquitted. 

b kid rovrip—twi rip Karaxapi^t<r9ai r. £.] Gorg. p. 474. E. 
ov Stjttov kicrog rovrwv kari ra KaXa, rov y wty'tXipa tlvai y 
yS'ta apiportpa. Lysid. p. 219. E. Compare Matth. §. 468. b.— 
Karaxapt^tcrOai ro Sikuiov is to sacrifice justice to favour, to neglect 
justice in order to bestow a favour on another. 

e Kai opwpoKtv] Demosth. against Timocrat. p. 747. ed. Reisk. 
ipyipiovpai Kara rovg vopovg Kai ra yfy<piapara rov Sypov Kai 
rijg fiovXyg rwv irtvraKoaiwv. Pollux Onom. VIII. 122. 6 St 
opKog yv rwv SiKaarurv 7rtpi pkv u>v vopoi dm, Kara rovg vo¬ 
povg ipy^id<r9ai' 7rtpi St wv py dm, avv yvwpy SiKaiordry. 

d py ovv aZiovrt] That is, do not then thhik. A little further 
on the collocation of the words is worthy of remark : a pyrt yyov- 
pcn k aXa tlvai. The common order would be : & yyovpai pyre 
k aXa tlvai. 

e dXXwg rt 7ravrwg—pdXicrra p'tvroi Kai —] That is, both at 
other times by all means, and most particularly now, when I am ac¬ 
cused of impiety by Meletus. 

f d irdQoipi — fiiaZoipyv] Understand x a P^o9ai poi rd Si- 
Kaia. In the following clause the words should be connected thus, 
SiSaGKOipi av vpag py yytZ<r9ai Qtovg tlvai. 

XXV. a To ptv prj dyavaKTtiv ] The preceding part of the 
‘Apology’ is supposed to have been spoken before the judges gave 
their first votes concerning him ; the remaining part after he was 
found guilty of the crime imputed to him by Meletus. For now the 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


133 


question of the punishment due to his offence was to be determined. 
There were two kinds of causes, the one dripyrog, in which the 
punishment was already appointed by the law 3 j the other r ipyri), 
in which the judges were allowed by the laws a discretionary power 
as to the punishment. We must always, therefore, when we read of 
causes in antient writers, be careful to distinguish to which of these 
two kinds the case belongs. There is no doubt that the cause of So¬ 
crates ought to be referred to the kind called ripyrrj. In a cause 
of this kind, the following mode of proceeding appears to have been 
adopted in the courts of justice. After the accuser and the defendant 
had made their speeches, the Judges determined, by their first votes, 
whether they condemned or acquitted the accused. Then if the 
crime was not capital, and the punishment was not fixed by law, 
they proceeded to determine the punishment; that is, the defendant 
was asked what punishment he considered himself to deserve, whe¬ 
ther that which the prosecutor wished, or another more just. This 
was said, dvriripdaQai. See Meier and Schoemann “ Der At¬ 
tache Process” p. 724 foil. This having been done, the judges 
again gave their votes, and decided the cause. On these two kinds 
of causes, aripyrog, and Tipyrr), see Meier and Schoeman Att. 
Proc. p. 171—193.—But since Socrates was accused of impiety, as 
is indicated by his own words : /jit) ovv dolour's pt — roiavra Stiv 
rrpog vpag 7rpd.TTtiv — d<Tt(3tlag <ptvyovra vtto MeXyrov rovrovt, 
it is naturally asked whether that accusation belonged to the causes 
called npyrov, or not. For one would naturally suppose that a 
capital punishment would be awarded by law against those who at¬ 
tacked the religion of the country ; especially since we know that 
several had already suffered death who had been accused of impiety. 
But that this was not the case, is evident, not only from this Apology 
of Socrates, but also from Demosth. Timocr. p. 702. 5: aotfitiag 
ypa<pyv KaraGKtvaaag tig dyuiva Karioryatv. tv St rovr<p to 
Trtfiirrov ptpog t&v xpytyojv ov ptraXafivv SifXt xiXiag. 

b Kai ovk dv'tXTTiGTOV ytyovt] That is, has not happened to me 
contrary to my expectation. For tXirig, iXirii^tiv, and their deriva¬ 
tives, are used either in the sense of hope or of fear. See commen¬ 
tators on Thom. Mag. p. 299. Observe the brevity of the expres¬ 
sion. At full length, it would be : Kai Si) Kai tovto, oti ovk 
dvtXTTKTTov poi y .— ovtu) Trap oXiyov tatoQai, aXXa rrapd ttoXv 
is correctly translated by Fischer: I did not think that the number of 
votes acquitting me would differ so little from the number condemning 
me; on the contrary, I thotight that the number of votes in my favour 

N 


134 


NOTES ON THE 


would be far exceeded by the number against me. On which use of 
the forms 7 rap* oXiyov, and 7 rapa 7 roXv, see Budaeus Comment. L. 
Gr. p. 209. Viger p. 647. and Matthiae § 588. n. 2. 

c el rpeig povai perei rtiro^] M£ra7rt7rrcti/, is to fall otherwise, 
to fall into another balloting-box, as Fischer correctly translates, 
quoting Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. 461. Vol. II. ed. Taylor, el 8k fiia fio- 
vov fjLeTS7re<Tev. The reading rpelg Stephans from Bas. 2. has 
changed into rpiaKovra, after the best MSS. Siivern, in his essay 
“ on the Clouds of Aristophanes,” quotes the following opinion of 
Bdckh; who remarks on the passage in Diog. Laert. II. 41, that 
there were 281 votes against Socrates; “As the passage in Plato is 
clear, it does not appear to me very important what notions we 
form on that in Diogenes Laertius, regarding the trial of Socrates, 
and the judgment of his contemporaries respecting it. It is clear 
that this author’s expression is of doubtful meaning, for he speaks 
as if 281 was the difference between the votes for and against 
Socrates. Iif this notice of Diogenes be correct, we must conclude 
from the two passages taken together, 1. Either (in conformity with 
the Bibliot. der alten Literatur und Kunst, II. p. 10; Matthia, Misc. 
Philol. I. p. 252; and with Fischer on the Apology of Plato, § 25.) 
that 556 judges decided the question; for if from the 281 votes 
three are reckoned on the other side, there then remains an equality 
of 278 votes, by which Socrates would have been acquitted: there 
must consequently have been 275 judges who voted for him. 2. Or 
the whole number was 557, and Socrates had 276, and then if three 
had been taken from the 281, he would have had a majority of 279 
against 278. Schomann, on the contrary (see Att. Process, s. 139), 
makes the number 559 ; but this must be wrong. 

“ Now as it can scarcely be imagined that a court of 556 or 557 
judges could have been seated, there are only two ways, in my 
opinion, of explaining the circumstance. 

“ As we find tribunals not only of 500, 1000, 1500, &c., that is, 
simple, double, triple, and so on, 500 being the simple regular 
number (i. e. an aliquot section of the judges), but also those of 200, 
400, 700, or what I consider as tantamount, 201, 401, 701, by 
which this aliquot arrangement is broken, there is no reason why 
we may not suppose also a tribunal of 600. But 556-557 is so 
much below this last number, that if we assume that the tribunal 
before which Socrates was tried, properly consisted of 600 judges, the 
number of absentees could not have been merely accidental. We may 
therefore conceive the following solution of this difficulty. By the 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


135 


Usages of Rome a judge could neutralize his vote by the N. L.; but 
we know of nothing of this kind in the Athenian jurisprudence. The 
Athenian judge had only a black and a white pebble (pierced or 
entire). But it is not probable that the judge was absolutely 
obliged to vote for one side or the other; if he was allowed to with¬ 
hold his suffrage, it must have been by not casting his vote into 
the afupopt^g k vpiog, urna valida, but he cast both the black and 
the white pebbles into the a\i<popevg aicvpog, as Petit conjectures, 
and Schomann, § 723, thinks not improbable; and we must conse¬ 
quently suppose, that in the affair of Socrates about 40 judges 
withheld their votes in this manner. 

“ An ordinary Heliaea consisted of 500 judges. This would be 
admissible, if we could venture, in Diogenes Laertius, to write 
iTEVTT}KovTa instead of oySorjKovra. Socrates would then have had 
251 votes against him and 246 or 245 for him ; if then we take 
three from 251 he would have had a majority of 249 against 248, 
or 248 against 248, that is, an equality of votes. The whole num¬ 
ber of judges would thus have been 496 or 497, and so few would 
be wanting to the legal number, that this may have been accidental, 
either because they came too late, and were not admitted after the 
hoar, or were detained by illness, &c. In no case could such a 
judgment have been invalidated in consequence of the absence of a 
few, as 251 was the absolute majority of 501. But yet the reading 
of oydorjKovTa in Diogenes must be of considerable antiquity, as it 
is highly probable that upon this is founded the reading TpiaKovra 
for rpelg, which is found in many MSS. of Plato’s Apology, and in 
that of Clarke: but it does not therefore necessarily follow that 
Diogenes, or the authority he followed, wrote bydor/icovra , though 
it is clear that the author of the reading TpiaicovTa must have been 
thinking of a tribunal of 500 or 501 Heliasts, although even this 
leads to no satisfactory result; for after subtracting 30 voices from 
281, 251 for conviction would still be the majority, and thus 
Socrates would not have been acquitted by this removal of 30 
votes: and the reading rpiaKovra seems the less to deserve consi¬ 
deration, although it were more suited to the context than it really 
is. For if Socrates had been condemned by 500 or 501 judges, with 
a majority of 281 against 219, or 220, there would have been 60 
more against him than for him, and Plato could not have expressed 
himself as he has done ; and however valuable may be Clarke’s MS, 
it can only be considered in the light of a copy, which is not 
infallible.,’ (Translated by Hamilton .) j 


136 


NOTES ON THE 


d si pr/ avefitj ”Avvrog icat Avkwv] Since Anytus and Lyco 
were avvrjyopoi or avvdiKOi of Meletus, who had instituted the 
prosecution, it was permitted to them, as well as to Meletus, to speak 
against Socrates on the trial. See Meier and Schoemann “ Attische 
Process” p. 707 foil. 

e kcLv S)<p\e %. dp .— rwv ■tyrjQwv'] Unless the accuser obtained 
a fifth part of the votes he was fined one thousand drachmae, was 
branded with infamy (drqtu^t), and was forbidden to become an 
accuser again. See Demosth. in Mid. p. 529. 23., in Timocrat. 
p. 702. 5., in Theocr. p. 1323. 19., Harpocrat. in dwpwv ypa^rj, 
Meursius Lectt. Attic. V. 13., Themid. Att. II. 21., and Meier and 
Schoemann “ Attische Process” p. 734 foil. Socrates here says 
that Meletus, without the aid of Anytus and Lyco, would not have 
obtained the fifth part of the suffrages, since his own influence was 
not great enough to obtain a verdict against Socrates. The passage, 
which has been misunderstood by Fischer, has been correctly in¬ 
terpreted by Schleiermacher. 

XXVI. a Tiparcu d’ ovv poi 6 avr/p Oavdrov ] The accuser 
always inserted in his declaration the punishment which he thought 
the accused deserved, if the punishment were not already fixed by 
the laws. 

b r\ drfXov, on rijg a^iag] That is, but why do I ask ? or, is it 
indeed evident ? &c. The reading is therefore erroneous. 

c rZ a£io£ sipi iraOslv % cnrorZacu ] This was a regular phrase 
in trials, TzaQslv referring to the punishment of the body, cnrorlffai 
to the fine. See Meier and Schoemann “ Attische Process” p. 739 
foil. — On the expression o n paQojv, of which examples have been 
collected by Heindorf on Euthydem. p. 339 foil., see Hermann on 
Viger. p. 759 foil., Praefat. ad Aristoph. Nubb. p. xlvi. ed. 
sec. The sentence may be thus translated : How then ? What 
ought I to suffer or to pay for having on no occasion in my life kept 
quiet, but — fyc. 

d aW’ ape\r](TaQ uvnep ol 7roX\oZ] Understand ImpsXovvrai. 
For when a negative verb precedes in sentences opposed to one ano¬ 
ther, the affirmative verb is frequently omitted. See Heindorf on 
Gorg. § 29. Matth. § 634. 2. Ruhnken. on Rutil. Lup. p. 47 and 
131. and the authors quoted by Heindorf on Ilorat. Satir. I. 1. 
Compare Ruddimann’s Instit. L. L. T. II. p. 361. — icai drjpriyo- 
piuiv Kai twv aXXwv apx&v. Arjprjyopia in this passage means 
the occupation of him who makes speeches in the assemblies of the 
people. Although this was not one of the magistracies, yet it is not 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


137 


incorrect to add rdv aXXivv apx&v. For a\\og is used here as in 
Gorg. § 64. vi to ruiv noXir&v Kai ru>v aXXwv Zsvwv, that is, 
icai tu>v aXXtov, ^iviov ovrwv. Where see Heindorf. Therefore 
the sense of the words is this: because I have cared nothing for 
gain, domestic affairs, military commands, influence with the people, 
and moreover also public offices, and conspiracies, and seditions. Fis¬ 
cher therefore is wrong in defending the other reading 8y/uovp- 
ytdtv, especially since he has by no means proved, that bypcipxot 
were also called at Athens by the name Sypiovpyoi .— The fac¬ 
tions and seditions which arose after the Peloponnesian war through¬ 
out all Greece, and particularly at Athens, are well known.— 
’'EnieiKyg is frequently opposed to <pai)Xog, and signifies good, 
liberal, just. 

« ivravQa pkv ovk ya~\ Remark this use of ivravQa, which 
occurs again a few lines below in ivravQa yet. Phileb. p. 57. B. 
doKEi roivvv ipotyt ovrog b \6yog—ivravQa npo(3s(5yKtvai. 
Rep. p. 445. B. intintp ivravQa iXyXvQaptv. Ibid. C. tnticy 
ivravQa avafitflyKapsv rov Xoyov. Menexen. p. 248. C. tv- 
ravQa rov vovv rpknovreg. Xenoph. Anab. I. 10, 13. tnti ce 
Kai ivravQ' ix&povv oi "EXXr/vff. Sophocl. Philoctet. v. 377. 
o 8’ ivQdb’ tjkojv, Kaintp ov 8vcropyog u>v, dyxOelg npog a t%y- 
KOVtTiv utd’ ypeixparo. Gorg. p. 494. E. Ammonius p. 51. tvrav - 
Qol Kai ivravQa Kai ivQdde 8ia<pspti. ivravQoi pkv yap ryv tv 
romp (leg. tig ronov ) aypaeriav 8yXoi‘ ivravQa 8t Kai ryv tv 
revKtp Ktti ryv tig ronov. opoiwg Kai ro ivQdSe. This mode of 
expression is exactly the reverse of that which has been spoken of in 
C. XXII, note ( d ). For in the same manner as it was shown there 
that verbs signifying rest are joined with adverbs of motion to a 
place, the two ideas of rest and motion being united in a single pro¬ 
position : so, conversely, verbs indicating motion are added to ad¬ 
verbs which properly signify rest, and not motion. This must be 
explained by the mental activity of the Greeks, who were accustomed 
to unite many different notions in the same member of a sentence. 

f ini 5k rb 181$ Uaerrov iwv—ya] This redundancy is remark¬ 
able. It is evident that the participle iutv might have been omit¬ 
ted. 

x ovrio Kara rbv avrbv rponov ] These words also are put tK 
napaXXyXov. Similar examples have been collected by Astius ad 
Legg. p. 24. 

h dvdpi nivyri ivtpyiry] A person who had deserved well of the 
state was honoured with the name svepyiryg. Dorvill on Chariton* 

N 3 


138 


NOTES ON THE 


p. 317. ed. Lips, says : “ Great men, nay, even kings, sought as a 
distinguished honour evepykrag tov drjpov ypatpijvai of Athens. ’ 
Xenoph. de redit. 923. Lysias 20. p. 365. Suidas in arriXr). An- 
tient inscriptions supply many examples.” 

* fiaXXov 7 rp« 7 tsi ovrojg, &>£ — ] The common expression would 
have been either, o n piaXXov spinet r\ rbv r. a . k. r. X. or '6 ti 
TT piizu ovT(og, wg tov r. k. t. X. But, uniting both constructions, 
he said fiaXXov ovrwg wg, in conformity with that free mode of 
speaking which the Greeks very often used. So, C. XVII., /xrjTe 
(Tiofidruiv t7rifis\eX<r9ai p,r)Tt xP r lH‘ ( ^ T0)V ^porepov ovru) o<p6Spa, 
wg rfjg ipvxvg^ See also, Rep. VII. p. 526. C. Kai p-rjv, wg ey<p- 
pai, a ye piei^o) ttovov 7rap£%£i pavdavovTi Kai fieXeTuivn, ovk 
civ pq,diwg ovbe 7 roXXa av evpoig, wg rovro. Min. p. 318. E. ob 
yap £<r0’ o ti tovtov aaefisoTepov eanv, ovff ovtw XPV poXXov 
evXafieTaQai, tcX r/v elg Oeovg icai Xoyq Kai epytp eZapiapraveiv. 
Eryx. p. 392. C. viro Sh twv apuKpwv tovtwv civ fxaXXov opyi- 
Zoivto ovrwg, wg av paXiara x a Xe7rwTaroi e’irjaav. 

k ev 7rpvravei(p cirelaOai] The Prytaneum was a place in the 
citadel where the laws of Solon were kept, see Pausan. I. 18.: and 
a daily allowance of provisions was given to the citizens who had 
deserved well of the republic, called (nrelaOai : which was ac¬ 
counted among the Greeks a very great honour. See Cic. Orat. I. 
54. Demosthen. de falsa leg. p. 231. Aeschin. de f. leg. p. 267. 
T. II. Tayl. Pollux. IX. 40. Gruter Inscrip, p. 460. I. and Schol. 
Aristoph. Equitt. p. 199. Bas.— "inTrog is the same as iceXrjg, a 
single horse, guided by one driver, see Scheffer, de re vehic. I. 8. 
p. 85. &vvwpig is a chariot with two horses, and Zevyog one 
with three or four horses. See Suidas, Hesychius, Phavorinus under 
these words. veviicrjKtv ’OXvpnna is generally used for veviKijKev 
’OXvpnridai. But the same construction is also used by Isocrat. de 
Big. p. 351. C. and p. 357. 'OXvpLmdaiv eviicrjoev. 

XXVII. a w£7T£p 7repi tov oiktov Kai rrjg avTifioXrjcnwg] He 
refers to his saying, in C. XXIII., that he would not follow the ex¬ 
ample of other accused persons, who tried to move the pity (oiktov) 
of the judges, and that he would not implore the judges as a suppli¬ 
ant. This is the avn(36Xrj<ng or avn/3oXta which he speaks of* 
For as avTifioXeXv is the same as iKereveiv, so avTifioXyaig is the 
same as iKSTeia. See Thom. Mag. p. 75. 

b £kwv elvai\ That is, as far as depends on my own intention. 
For it is not the same as ckojv by itself. See Herm. on Viger. 
p. 888. Compare Lobeck on Phrynich. p. 273 sq., who informs us 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 139 

that the Attic writers use this form chiefly in negative proposi- 
tions. 

c aXXyXoig SieiXiyfiiQa] That is, in the earlier part of the 

speech. 

d a&iog tipi rov jcaxoti] So after Koehler, Heindorf and Bekker 
we have corrected the common reading d£. tipi rov kcucov. Which 
correction is proved to be necessary by the words in C. XXVIII. 
ovk eWiapai tpavrov a£iovv kcikov ovdtvog. The indefinite pro¬ 
noun tiq is often put before the word which it agrees with. Theo- 
crit. Idyll. I. 32. tvrooQtv d't yvva, n Qt&v SaidaXpa, tstvktcu, 
where see Meinekius. 

e ri dtiaag ; fj py ttclOu) —] The meaning required that we 
should mark the sentence with a note of interrogation; and for y 
read »/. — What fearing ? that is, shall I fix a punishment for my¬ 
self. Is it lest I should suffer, fyc .— ov MtXyrog poi riparai. 
Remark the construction of the verb npaaOai with a dative, as in 
C. XXVI. and C. XXVIII. where he says of the judges: togovtov 
PovXsgOs poi npyaai. The active is always said of the judges, the 
middle of the accuser and accused : of which an example occurs a 
few lines further on in this chapter. 

f tXoopai 0)v tv old' on KaicCjv ovnov] The regular construction 
would be, either tXw/xat ri tovtcov & tv olSa on kciku scrnv, or 
sX(t)fiaL n t&v, tv olda, ko.ku> v ovtiov. Both constructions are 
here combined. In a similar manner Gorg. p. 481. D. aiaddvofiai 
ovv (rov iicdffTOTS Ka'nrtp ovrog dtivov, on, ottoo av (J>y <rov 
to. 7r aidiKCL Kai 07 rcjg av <py £%£iv, ov Svvafikvov dvnXeytiv, 
aXX’ avo) Kai kutco ntTa(3aXXo[j.ivov, where see Heindorf. 

g Toig tvStKa ;] The Eleven were magistrates, to whom persons 
condemned by public trial were delivered for punishment. Some 
regarded these words as a gloss, and recommended their omission ; an 
opinion embraced by Heindorf, Schleiermacher, and Bekker. I think 
they may very well be retained, as exhibiting more emphatically the 
disagreeable and odious condition on which he would then hold his 
life. 

h Kai dtdsuQai scog av SKricrw ;] AtdtaQai, to be in the public 
prison. This passage alone is sufficient to show that persons who 
were fined, were imprisoned until the fine was paid. Demosth. c. 
Timocr. p. 721. 1. iav apyvpiov TiprjOy dtdtaOai scog av bcrtay. 
Adv. Mid. p. 529. 26. See the commentators on Nep. Miltiad. 7 .; 
and also Cimon. 1. Meier and Schoemann ‘‘ Attische Process” 
p. 517. 



140 


NOTES ON THE 


* el ovnog aXoyiarog elpi] On this use of the indicative see 
C. XII. note (n). — A little farther on is to wish, to 

desire. 

k dXXoi de apa ] On this expression see C. XXIII. note (c). 
These words do not depend on the preceding ort, but the sentence 
begins anew. 

1 KaXog ovv av poi 6 (Slog eir) — Zrjv] This is said ironically. 
The verb iZepxeaOeu, not ipevysn>, is said of going into exile, as has 
been well observed by Fischer. — aXXr\v aXXrjg iroXiv 7 roXt(og 
apelj3ea9ai is to change, or go, from one state to another to take up 
his residence. — The infinitive %ijv is added to the preceding words 
KaXog—- 6 filog sir], to give additional force to the expression ; which 
is frequent after demonstrative pronouns. Compare Matth. § 535. 
y. and $ 468. 

m kclv pev r. aireXavvu)] That is, do not admit them to hear 
my discourses. — On the Attic future tZeXwai, see Buttm. § 86. 

XXVIII. a Tvyxavsi peyiarov aya9ov ov~\ The participle ov 
is restored from the best MSS. But Heindorf, after Erfurdt, has 
shown that the verb rvyxavtiv may also be used absolutely, Gorg. 
§ 124. See also Lobeck on Phrynich. p. 277. 

b 6 be aveZeraarog — av9 pw7r<p] These words also depend on 
the preceding ort, and are not introduced as a parenthesis, as was 
thought by Fr. A. Wolf. — On the particle de in the words ravra S’ 
en tjTTov 7rs'i(rs(r9s, which contain the apodosis expressed with em¬ 
phasis, see Hermann on Viger, p. 784 and 845. — On the ex¬ 
pression /3 log (3i<i)Tog, a life having the properties of life, see Crito, 
C. VIII. note (a). 

c vvv de—ov yap etrrti'] After vvv de understand ov dvvapat 
poi rip,r]<Tao9ai xphp aT(t) v. Some supposed that the words ought 
to be read without a pause: vvv de ov yap tan, since the Greeks, 
from the rapidity with which their thoughts followed one another, 
seemed also in this expression to have united two members of a 
sentence. 

d avrol d’ syyvao9ai\ Understand <])aai, which is contained in 
the preceding word KtXevovai. For illustrations of this expression, 
Fischer refers to Hemsterh. on Lucian, T. I. p. 492. Valcken. on 
Herodot. VII. 104. IX. 9.—Etyraol. M. ’Eyyvrjrrjg' 6 avadexope- 
vog d'lKrjv. On the word a^ioxptiog see C. V. note (i). 

XXIX. a Ov 7roXXou y’ eveKa \P •] The remainder of the “Apo¬ 
logy" is spoken by Socrates after the judges had condemned him on 
the second vote. In this part of the oration, also, we observe an ad- 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


141 


mirable liberty of speech, courage, and evenness of soul, so that 
Cicero most truly observed that Socrates spoke, not like a suppliant, 
or accused person, but like the master or superior of his judges.—- 
The words ov 7 roXXov y* evetca xpovov have been rendered by Ste¬ 
phens, on account of no long space of time, that is, as Fischer cor¬ 
rectly explains, the remainder of my life. For Socrates had now 
arrived at old age; and therefore could live but a short time longer. 
—"Ovopa I%£iv properly, in a good sense, to he praised, to be cele¬ 
brated; but, in this passage, to be censured or blamed. Air lav exeiv, 
is properly to be accused ; to be an accused person : hence, as in this 
passage, to be reprehended or blamed. Yet it is very often also used, 
in a good sense, to be praised, to be celebrated. See Casaubon 
on Athen. IX. 2.—Since the expression ovopa icai airiav ex HV 
has a passive signification, it is construed with vtto. 

b vpXv rovro eyevero' ] That is, epe rtQvavcu Sfj, an addition, 
which appears to have crept into the text from several MSS. Hein- 
dorf wished it to be retained, but thought that it should be read, to 
epe reQvavai Srj, in which he was wrong, as may be seen from the 
observations of Matthiae, $ 468. b.— airo rov avroparov, of its own 
accord, even if you had not condemned me to death. 

c Tcoppu) fjdr] eari tov (5iov~\ That is, that my age is now so ad¬ 
vanced, that no long space of life is remaining. Similarly Plutarch, 
in the “ Life of Demosth.” p. 846. E.: dips irore icai icoppw rrjg 
rjXiKiag yipapeOa 'PiopatKoXg ypappacriv evrvyxaveiv. 

d olg av vpag £7m<ra] That is, by which I might have persuaded 
you. — caropiq, Xoytov, by want of words, or as Cicero calls it, Orat. 
I. 54., inscientia dicendi. 

e TeOvavai rj eKtlvwg %r}v ] With bceivcog understand a7ro\oyr)- 
aapevog. On the use of the word reOvavai , see C. XVII. note (z). 
—A little before, tots is before you condemned me.— n avra rroieXv, 
aTTavTa 7 roieiv, tt av rroielv, means to leave no stone unturned, to 
leave nothing untried. Euthyphron. p. 8. C. 

f eav rig ToXpiji] That is, if any one can prevail on himself to 
do this, if any one goes to so great a pitch of impudence, that 

_Xenoph. Mem. II. 1, 3. rig av ev <ppovu>v tov aov Oidaov 

ToXprjaeuv elvai; Plat. Crit. C. XV. eToXprjcrag ovtw y Xicrxpwc 
emQvpeXv Zrjv. 

B Oavarov eK<j)vytiv~] On the infinitive subjoined for the purpose 
of explanation to the pronoun rovro, see Matth. § 468. b. — With 
TTOvypiav, a little further on, understand UQvyeXv. 

h lire (3pudi)g wv icai 7rp.] He alludes perhaps to Odyss. VIII. 


142 


NOTES ON THE 


329. Kixavei rot (3padi>g wkvv .— deivol kcli 6%eig, that is, strong 
and quick. We might perhaps have expected fcatVcp dsivoi icai 
6%tlg. Bat Socrates plays on the ambiguity of the verb aXwvai , 
which is applied both to one who is overtaken in running, and to one 
who has lost his cause and Seen col 

* Qavarov diKrjv cnpXwv'] That is, conuotnned to the punishment 
of death. This expression, which is not uncommon, has been 
illustrated by Ruhnken, Tim. Gloss, p. 262. and Pierson, Moer. 
p. 426. Playing on the word, he adds v7ro rrjg aXyOeiag 
uupXrjKOTeg poxOrjpiav ical adaciav, that is, you are convicted and 
condemned by Truth to the reproach of wretchedness and injustice. — 
T(p Tifiripan Eppevu), that is, I am prepared to undergo the punish* 
ment which has been ordained by you. — perpioog ex tiv the same as 
tv, opOwg. For perpia is applied to whatever is suitable or becoming 
to any one. See Graevius and Heinsius on Hesiod’s “ Works and 
Days,” v. 306. 

XXX. a iv $ paXiffT avQpiorroi xp^vp-ydovoiv'] That the an- 
tients were of opinion that the mind became more divine on the ap¬ 
proach of death, and that dying persons foresaw and predicted future 
events, is shown by Cicero, Divin. I. 30. where see commentators. 
The subject has also been treated by Eustath. on Iliad. 7r'. p. 1089. 
ed. Rom. See also Phaedo c. 53. 

b rj o'iav epe amKrovart ] That is, than the punishment which 
ye have inflicted on me in condemning me to death. —rov didovai 
iXtyxov rov (3iov, that is, from your life being examined, and there¬ 
fore censured. For these words follow : tt Xsiovg yap ivovrai vpag 
oi kXiyx°vTEQ. 

c Kai x^XiTTwrepoi] On the omission of roaovrqj, see C. XVII, 
note (<i). A little further on, arcoKTEivovreg dvQpwirovg is, be¬ 
cause ye put men to death. Fischer was wrong in supposing that the 
aorist was required. 

d pr) rovg aXXovg /coXouciv] KoXoveiv is properly to amputate ; 
to mutilate: hence, to prevent any thing from being accomplished ; to 
stop a person's undertaking ; to restrain a person, so that he may not 
be able to do what he attempts, as in this passage. 

XXXI. iv <p ol apxovreg d<r%o\iav ayovoi] That is, while 
the Eleven are occupied. The judges were accustomed to deliver 
to the Eleven those who were condemned to be punished. It was 
the duty of the Eleven to order their assistants to lead away the 
culprit to prison, and to inflict on him the prescribed punishment. — 
On iv <$, in the mean time, while, see on Rep. VI. p. 498. B. Theaet. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


143 


p. 196. E. p. 190. E. — ol sXOovra — rtOvavai i. e. elg to dsrrpw- 
rrjpiov. — A little further on, diapvOoXoyrjcrai is confabulari, that 
is, to discuss or converse together , as Phaedo c. XIV. p. 70. B. 
aXXd tl dij iroiwpsv ; r] 7rspi avTwv tovtwv flovXsi SiapvOoXoyd- 
psv, tire tiicoQ ovtojq tyrt sirs ay ; L~gg. I. p. 632. E. 

* y yap eioiQvTa pot p ~ y tov Saipoviov'] I cannot agree 
with Schleiermacher, who considers the words y tov daipoviov a 
gloss, because Plato elsewhere is accustomed to call the thing itself to 
Saipoviov, and because when he expresses the same thing by a sub¬ 
stantive, as pavTiicy, <piovy, ayptiov, he either adds nothing, or else 
tov 9eov, rather than tov daipoviov. For even if a passage cannot 
be found in every respect resembling this, yet I think we are safe in 
following all the MSS. I even think that the want of those words 
would be felt. For y eiwOvZa poi pavTiKy, would be obscure, 
since it might be doubted what description of pavTiKy he meant. 
Therefore he adds y tov daipoviov, namely, that which I owe to that 
spirit which I have before mentioned . For y pavrucy does not de¬ 
note the thing itself, which Socrates meant, when he spoke of his 
daipoviov, but rather the effect of the daimonion. — A little further 
on, observe the collocation iravv siri apucpoZg for sirl iravv api- 
Kj ooTq. The reason is, that iravv is the emphatic word. So Euthyd. 
p. 305. C. iravv irapa iroXXoig. Phaedo, p. 110. C. icai iroXd 
tn sk XapirpoTspwv. Bep. IX. p. 509. B. 7roXv siri dsivorspip 
oXsOpip. Euthyphr. p. 14. E. iroXv did. flpayvTspwv. Cratyl. 
p. 413. C. iroXv iv irXeiovi airopip. More examples are given by 
Bornemann on Xenoph. Sympos. p. 46. — si n psXXoipi, that is, 
as often as I was about, fyc, 

b a ye dij oiyOsiy av tiq icai vopl&rai] That is, and are really 
regarded as the worst of evils; for we ought to interpret the word 
vopi&crQai in this manner. 

c Xsyovra ; ueTagv] That is, at the very moment of my speaking ; 
in the middle of my speaking. Theag. p. 128. E. XsyovTog <rov 
psTa^v ysyov's poi y <pwvy y tov daipoviov. Rep. I. p. 336. A. 
Kai diaXeyopevwv ypwv ptra^v i!>ppa avTiXapflaveaOai tov 
Xoyov. More examples are given by Reitz on Lucian. T. I. p. 730. 
Wesseling on Herodot. IV. p. 350. Viger de Idiot, p. 418. Ast on 
Polit. 349. 

d r ; 0 vv — viroXap(3dvw ;] There is no good reason for follow¬ 
ing Stephans and others in substituting a comma for the note of 
interrogation : indeed this weakens much the vigour and liveliness of 
the passage. Plato often makes his speakers interrogate themselves. 


144 


NOTES ON THE 


and answer their own questions. A little further on, ovk to9' oTrug, 
is, by no means. Compare Matth. § 482. 2. On the words imme¬ 
diately following, compare Euthydem. p. 272. E. aviarapevov 8k 
fiov eykvtro to t’uoOog uyptiov to 8aifioviov. 

XXXII. a ’Evvoyaiop tv 8k icai Tyde — '] The greater part of 
this chapter has been transcribed by Eusebius Praepar. Evang. 
p. 661. ed. Viger. and Stobaeus Sermon. 119. p. 606. Cicero also 
translates it, Tuscul. Disput. I. 41. The beginning of it is quoted 
with approbation by Theodoret. Therapeut. Serm. XI. p. 651.; and 
it is also referred to by Plutarch, in Consolat. ad Apollon, p. 107. 

b fj yap olov fiySkv tlvai] That is, toiovtov ti wgrt prj8kv 
tlvai, as a little lower down : ti 8 ’ av olov aTroSrjprjaai tffnv 6 
Oavarog. Eusebius and Theodoretus have prj8kv ti elvai, whence 
Heindorf conjectured that the reading ought to be firjSkv tn tlvai . 

c Kai [itTobcyaig Ty *p v XV —] O n the dative instead of the 
genitive, see Matth. $ 389. 1. — For ptTo'iKyaig to v tottov might 
have been said ptroiKyaig he tov tottov. Yet the former is no less 
usual. For since the verb peroiKtiv is not only construed with pre¬ 
positions, but also governs an accusative of the place, from which one 
person goes to another, as in Pausan. IV. 40. ’Aicapvaviav ptroi- 
Krjaai‘ therefore /jitTohcyaig tottov is no less correct than fitToiKyaig 
Ik tottov. — A little further on, tov tv6tv8t is put for tov iv- 
ravQa, because the verbal substantive signifies motion to a place* 
We have before spoken of a similar use of prepositions: the con¬ 
struction of the adverbs has been illustrated by Heindorf on Gorgias, 
p. 472. B. where we find : t) TltpucXsovg oXy oiKia y aXXy avy- 
ytvtia, yvnv av j3ov\y t&v tv6'tv8t tKXt^aaOai. Compare also 
Buttmann’s Gr. $ 138. 8. 

d Kal tire 8rj pybt/iia — ] To the particle tiTt correspond, after 
a long interval, the words further on : ti 8’ av. On ti 8k after tire 
see C. IV, note ( a ). 

e tyoj yap av olpai] ”Av belongs to the infinitive tvptlv. It is 
repeated on account of the long parenthesis; on which usage, see 
Hermann on Viger. p. 780. For the same reason, the words 8koi 
and olpai are subsequently repeated. Heindorf wished also the 
word ti to be repeated before the words 8koi (rKt^dptvov, for the 
sake of perspicuity. It is written so in Eusebius. But as the con¬ 
struction of the sentence is not altered from the beginning, this repe¬ 
tition does not appear to be necessary. 

f prj on i8i(uryv] That is, not to say any private man. See 
Hermann on Viger. p. 804. 


APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


145 


* evapiOprjTovg av evpsiv avrov r.] The pronoun avrov is to 
be connected with rov pkyav fiaaiXea, and increases the force : the 
great king himself. — EvapiOprjroi ypipai, that is, days which may 
be easily counted, here means very few , and 7 rpdf indicates compari¬ 
son : if they be compared with other days and nights. So, a little 
further on : tcl ipavrov TrdOri rrpbg to. tiaiviov. 

h fcai yap ovSiv 7r\dtor] Fischer, from Eusebius, has written 
irXeiov. But the more correct reading is n-Xeiiov, meaning longer, 
ovbkv being used for ov, as is frequently the case. Cicero has thus 
translated these words: perpetuitas consequentis temporis similis 
futura est uni nocti. — Compare Eutip. Med. v. 25. rov tt dvra 
’ <Tvvrr)Kovaa baitpvoig xpovov. Ibid. 1096. rpvxopevovg rov 
rravra xP° v °v. Rep. X. p. 618. B. 6 ttolq KivSvvog. Gorg. 
p. 470. E. 

* M ivwg re icai 'P abdpavQvg k. t. X/J These words are placed 
in apposition in the same case as the relative pronoun ; whereas the 
first part of the sentence requires them to be in the accusative. So 
Phaedo, p. 66. E. icai Tore — r/plv tcrai ov £7ri0vpovpev, —- 
ippovyirsiog, where Fischer ought not to have preferred 0 povtjaig . 
Ilipp. Mai. p. 281. C. rt ttots to ainov, on oi 7T aXaiol Iksivoi, u>v 
ovopara peyaXa Xeyerai S7rl goQ'hj,, IlirrafcoiJ re Kai B iavrog, — 
ipaivovrai cnrexoptvoi rwv ttoXitikwv tt paZeidv. More examples 
of this kind have been collected by Wolf, on Demosthen. Lept. $ 15. 

: Heindorf, on Hipp. Mai. § 2. on Phaedo, $ 30. Similarly Sul* 
picius in Cicer. Epp. IV. 5. genus hoc consolationis miserum est, 
quia, per quos ea confieri debet, propinquos ac familiares, ipsi pari 
molestia afficiuntur. — Respecting the judges of the infernal regions, 
and their duties, there is a remarkable passage in Gorg. p. 523. 
E. sqq. It appears to have been the opinion of the common peo¬ 
ple in Attica, probably derived, by rumour, from the Eleusinian mys¬ 
teries, that TriptOlemus, and other heroes who had lived a just and 
pious life, became judges in the infernal regions. For Triptolemus 
was said not only to have taught the Athenians agriculture, but also 
to have given them very wise laws, whence he was called Osapo- 
Qopog. 

k fcTrt tt oaip av rig be^air' av vp&v ;] Cicero : quanti tandem 
aestimatis ? Xenoph. Mem. II. 2, 8. d\\d vy Aia Xsyti, a ovk av 
ng s7ri rip (Slip 7r avri /3ovXoito tlvai. Compare Matthiae, $ 585. 

B. 

1 tyui pkv yap 7 roXXdicig WeXio reOvavai] On this use of the 
verb TtOvavai, see C. XVII. note (z). Eusebius has: iyut piv 


O 






146 


NOTES ON THE 


Kai noXXaKig : whence Heindorf suspected that Plato wrote: eyu) 
piv yap (cat noXXaKig etc. But there is no need of change. On 
this use of the word yap, by which reference is made to a sentence 
easily understood from what goes before, see Buttmann on Sophocl. 
Philoctet. v. 756., who thinks that it ought to be translated, truly, 
indeed. 

m r) diarpiftq avroQi ] Wolf has well rendered this: delightful 
conversation , if I may converse with P. fyc. — Respecting Palamedes, 
who was stoned by the Greek army, having been suspected of treason 
through the arts of Ulysses, see Heyn. Excurs. ad Virgil iEneid 
IT. 81. Valckenar. Diatrib. de fragm. Eurip. p. 190 sq. — Ajax 
Telamonius, the bravest of all the Greeks after Achilles, became mad 
and killed himself, from having been deprived of the arms of Achilles 
by the unjust judgment which conferred them on Ulysses. See Ho¬ 
mer. Odyss. v. 545 sqq. 

n avnnapapiuXXovTi — drjSig cij;] I think these words added 
for the purpose of explanation to the foregoing: 6avpa<rrr) SiarpifSrj 
k. t. X., and therefore there is no reason why we should read, after j 
Viger, on Eusebius in the place cited, Kai avrinap. or alter the pas- I 
sage in any other manner. This view has also been taken by Fis¬ 
cher. Some may prefer thinking, with A. Matthiae, § 636. that, 
through negligence, the apodosis is repeated. For we might safely 
omit the words: tog iyw olpcu, ovk av arjSig eirj. 

° tov ini Tpo/av ayayovra] That is, Agamemnon. 

p V aXXovg pvpiovg av rig u7roi] Stephens preferred f/ aXXovg 
pvplovg, ovg av rig enrol, not paying attention to that brevity by 
which several sentences are sometimes united in one clause. See 
Gorg. p. 483. D. £7T£t no'np diKaiip xpwpevog Ekp%T)g ini rt)v 
’EMatfa iarparevaev ; r) 6 rrarffp avrov ini roiig S KvQag ; 
a\\a pvpla av rig roiavra Xkyeiv. Phaedo, p. 94. B. \iyu> 

Si to roiovSe, a>g ei Kavparog ivovrog Kai Si\povg ini rovvavriov 
sXkuv, ini to pd nivsiv Kai neivtjg ivomijg ini to pi) iaOieiv. 
Kai aXXa pvpia nov opdpev ivavriovpivrjv rr\v ^v^v ToXg Kara 
to aCipa. Sophist, p. 226. B. Legg. XII. p. 944. A. Demosth. 
Mid. c. 7. 

q aprjxavov av sir) evSaipoviag ] Similarly Theaetet. p. 175. 
A. arona aiirip KaraQaiverai Ttjg apiKpoXoyiag , monstrous degree 
of stupidity. Compare Erfurdt on Sophocl. Antigon. v. 1194. 

XXXIII. a "AW a Kai vpag xpvl Cicero: vos, judices, qui me 
absolvistis. Correctly. 

b Kai ev t i tovto SiavoeloQai aXi]6eg'\ The circumstance that 






APOLOGY OF SOCRATES. 


147 


ti is used here before tovto arises from the usage of the Greeks, first 
to express what they mean generally by the pronoun ti, and then to 
limit or define the meaning more accurately. So we should say, one 
thing, namely this, is to be regarded as true. — curb tov avrofiarov : 
that is, by chance, fortuitously, not by the design and will of the gods. 
— cnrriXX. 7rpay/Lidrwv, that is, human affairs, the idea of labour 
and toils being added. — ov iravv %a\., not much; not greatly. 
Others have incorrectly translated it by no means, a signification 
which the words no where have. — A little further on, Heindorf con¬ 
jectured that the reading ought to be : tovQ' o avroig a£iov fikfx- 
<pe(r9ai. Injudiciously, as it weakens the force of the sentiment. 

c ravra. ravTa Xvttovvtsq] That is, exhorting them to virtue, 
making trial of their wisdom, convincing them of folly. — tivai ti, 
that is, to be endowed with great wisdom. 

d ’A\\a yap—] Cicero Tuse. I. 41. Sed tempus est jam hinc 
abire, me, ut moriar ; vos, ut vitam agatis. Utrum autem sit meli¬ 
us, dii immortales sciunt: hominem quidem scire arbitror neminem. 
In the same manner Theaet. p. 145 B. wpa toLvvv <rol ffev «7ri- 
SeiKvvvai, tfioi 5k OKOTrtiaQai. On the forcible form of apposition 
in the words : avrog re icai ol vitig, see Hep. Ill* p. 414. D. Cri- 
to, C. XII. Sympos. p. 221. D. 





NOTES ON THE CRITO. 


I. a II rjvUa paXiOTa ;] What hour is it at most ? For paXiara 
is here to be taken as if put after numbers; on which usage see 
Bastius Epist. Crit. p. 37 sq. 

b opGpog (5aGvg~\ Crito defines the time more accurately in these 
words, for 7rp<p and opGpog differ from one another, as in Latin mane 
and diluculam, of which the former is the part of the day extending 
from twilight to about the third hour, according to the antient di¬ 
vision of the day ; but the latter is the twilight itself, when nox abiit, 
nec tamen orta dies, according to Ovid, A mat. I. 5, 6. Phrynichus : 
opGpog to 7rpo apxopivrjg rjpipag, kv (p in Xvxvip dvvarai Tig 
XprjaGai. The adjective /3 aOvg is used by the Greeks in reference 
to time as the word “ depth” is used in the phrase “ the depth of 
winter.” Protagor. p. 310. A. Tr}g tt aptXGovorjg vvKTog TavTrjoi, 
in opGpov (3a0iog. Lucian. Asin. 34. vvZ, fiaQeTa, where see 
Reitz. Polyaen. Strateg. I. 28, 2. (SaGeiag iinrspag. 

c Gavpd^w, oTTug r/OeX .—] 1 wonder how it came to pass that. 

Compare Xenoph. Mem. I. 1, 20. Gavpa^w ovv, 07rwf 7ror£ «7m- 
aGrjcav ol’AQrjvaloi. Eurip. Med. v. 51. Trwg Xe'nrsaGcu GsXu; 
On this construction, which is frequent, see Coraius on Isocrat. II. 
p. 23. So a little further on : 7 rd>g ovk iirriytipag ps ivGvg ; So¬ 
crates wonders that Crito was admitted so soon by the jailor, because 
ov 7 raw 7 rp<p aveipytTO. Phaedo. c. III. — 'Ynaicoveiv, which is 
properly said of a porter who hears persons knocking (rot£ jtpou- 
ovaiv ), is also used in the signification of opening the door and let¬ 
ting a person in. 

d k at n Kai tvtpyeTT]Tai'\ The reading /cat rot xat, and indeed 
also, which some have preferred, appears inconsistent with the 
modesty of Crito, who does not wish to boast of benefits conferred on 
the man, but merely to state the cause of his being admitted. There¬ 
fore /cat rt Kai, is preferable, not only from the authority of MSS., 
but also from the whole scope of the passage. For Crito speaks with 

o 3 



150 


NOTES ON THE 


modesty, and with a careful regard to the feelings of his high-minded 
friend, when he says that he was accustomed to give a trifle to the 
jailer. Tt is connected with evepy sttjtcu) on which construction, 
see Matth. § 415. Buttmann, § 118. 4. 5. The accusative sepa¬ 
rated from its verb is usual, the common construction being: icai rig 
k at, Kai riveg Kai, /cat rt icai. See Ducker. on Thucyd. p. 309. 
Poppo Observ. Critt. in Thucyd. p. 196. Buttmann and others 
preferred evepyereXrdi, the present tense, as indicating that Crito, 
frequently coming to the prison, usually gives a gratuity to the 
keeper. But Crito is reciting the causes which procured his admis¬ 
sion at a former time ; and therefore rightly uses the perfect, by 
which he indicates both that the man formerly received benefits from 
him, and was still mindful of them. On the form evepyeryrdi 
see Matth. $ 169. note ; compare § 167. n. 6. The omission of the 
augment gave rise to the reading evepyerelrdi and yvepyery- 
rai. 

e ’EmeiKwg 7 raXai] That is, pretty long since, or, a good while 
ago. Theaet. near the beginning, "Apri, u> Tep\f/ioiv, y 7raXai 
a.ypov ; Terps. ’ETrieiKutg tt aXai. Phaedo, p. 80. C. s7neiKu>g 

aw^vov eiripevei \povov. Grammarians interpret eTTieiKuig, when 
so placed, by ttclvv, Xidv. See Eustath. on II. a., p. 547. Hesych. 
under the word. — Immediately afterwards, the interrogative elra 
indicates wonder and annoyance. See Apolog. Socr. C. XVI. 

f obd’ a.v dvroQ yQeXov — ] I should not myself have liked to be 
in such a state of watchfulness and grief, if I were in your place; for 
since so grievous a calamity threatens you,, it would have been wrong to 
disturb your rest. The particle &v used with the imperfect indicates 
the supposition of a case contrary to that which in reality exists. See 
Hermann, on Viger. p. 820.— For iv roadbry re d.ypv'Kviq. Kdi 
Xt/7 ry the ordinary construction would be ev roddbry ciypvTrviq, re 
Kdi Xviry, which is found in some MSS. But the other reading is 
explained by understanding roddbry again after Kdi. For re is put 
immediately after roddvry to show that that word belongs to Xv7ry 
as well as to dypv7rviq,. Phaed. p. 94. D. ra re Kara yvpvdd- 
riKtjv Kdi ryv idrpiKtjv, i. e. ra re k. y. Kdi ra. Kdra. r. i. Legg. 
VII. p. 796. D. eig re rroXireidv Kdi idiovg oikovq, i. e. Kdi eig 
id. oik. Herodot. VII. 106. oi re Ik QpfKijg Kdi rov 'EXXj/cttov- 
rov, i. e. Kai oi £k rov 'EXX. More examples are given by Schaefer. 
Indie, ad Brunkii. Poetas Gnomic, p. 367. The subject has also 
been fully explained by Hartung Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. 
Sprache P. I. p. 116 sqq. 


CRITO. 


151 


r tog i/deojg k.] Emphatically, for on ovriog ydeoog K. So a little 
further on : ojg fxpdlwg avryv Kal irpawg Qepeig. Phaedo, p. 58. E. 
evdaiputv poi 6 avyp ey>aivero — wg adewg Kal yevvaiwg ereXevra. 
Ibid. p. 89. A. o.>g rjdewg Kal evpevwg rov Xoyov airede%a.ro. 
Compare Schaefer on Lamb. Bos. Ellips. p. 252. and Matth. 

§ 489. 3. 

h tva <bg {jdiara diayyg] The Greeks use the subjunctive mood 
after conjunctions indicating the final cause, when a preterite has 
gone before, if the object sought is not yet completely finished, but is 
contemplated as still continuing, as in this passage : on this point see 
Hermann, De emendanda ratione Gr. Gr. p. 212 sq. on Viger, 

р. 850. Compare Matth. § 518. I. Buttm. § 126. i. — With the 
verb didyyg is to be understood rov fiiov, on which ellipsis see 
Lambert. Bos. p. 59 sqq. ed. Schaefer. 

‘ evdaipovioa rov rpo7rov] On the construction see Matth. 
§ 367. a.— rpoirog here means the mode of thinking and acting 
exhibited by a man's life, — his disposition. Phaedo, p. 58. E. ev- 
daipcov e(f>aivero rov rpoirov. The meaning is plain from the 
words of Xenophon Memor. IV. 8, 3. Wavpa^ero eirl rtp evOvpwg 
Kal evKoXojg %fjv. —Before ttjXikovtov ovra, epe is not understood, 
but an indefinite subject, (as it is called). de — ravra aipeicr- 

Oai <pd<?K 0 VTd ye dr) k. t. X. To make the sentiment more em¬ 
phatic, he expresses it in general terms : “ it were absurd that a man 
being of such an age, should be unwilling to end his life." — TyXi- 
Kovrog, of so great an age: for Socrates was now seventy. See 

с. XIV. 

k ev roiavraig ZvpQopaTg dX'iGKovrai ] There is the same con¬ 
struction, Phileb. p. 45. C. ev roiovroig voaripamv exopevoi. 
Rep. III. p. 395. D. ev Zvpfyopalg re Kal irevOsai Kal Opyvoig 
exopevyv. Phaedo, p. 108. B. ev irday Ixopevy cnropiy. Ibid. 
dedepevog ev avdyKaig. Sophocl. Ajac. v. 270. avrjp sKeivog, 
r/viV ijv ev ry voa(p, avrog pev ijdeO’ olaiv sixer ev KaKoig . 
See on Phileb. p. 137. The common reading avroig is consistent 
with the construction of the verb eiriXveaOai, which properly signifies 
to render any thing free for any one, and hence to grant. X et it was 
desirable to follow the better MSS., especially since emXve<jQai nva 
appears to be used correctly in the sense of rendering any one free 
from something. The sense of the words is this : But old age, how¬ 
ever, does not set them free from the fear of death. The article to is 
to be referred to dyavaKrelv, forming an accusative absolute, py 
ov retains its proper force ne non , when it is used after a negative 


152 


NOTES ON THE 


particle. Therefore the words may be thus translated : But old age, 
however, does not render them free as regards this, namely that they 
should not be troubled at death. It may be also understood from this, 
how to /irj ov may generally be rendered by the Latin quominus • i 
On the accusative see Eurip. Hippolyt. v. 48. to yap rfjg S’ ov 
7TpOTlflf](T(t) KaKOV, TO flTf OV 7Tapa(TX^ v TOvg kflOvg SX@pOV£ efioi 
SIktjv roaavTryv, where some MSS. have tov fir) ov. ^Eschyl. I 
Prometh. v. 243. k^epvaafirfv (iporovg tov fir} diappaiaOsvTag sig j 
"Aidov fjLoXelv, where some MSS. have to fir). Plato, Rep. III. 
p. 354. B. ovk cnreaxofirfv to fir} ovk km tovto sAOslv arc 
kieeivov. 

1 aXXti t'i drj — ] That is, but, to return to the former subject, . J 
why then &c. 

m ov <rot, kfiol <paiverai] There is much beauty in the ad¬ 
dition of these words. Not to thee, he says, will that news be terri¬ 
ble, or produce any anxiety, whom I know to be superior to human 
troubles, and even death itself , but to us &c. For wg kfiol (paiverai 
is : as appears to me, that is, as I am fully persuaded. 

n iv rolg (3apvTara] That is, kv Tolg fpkpovmv kyw (3apvTara 
av kvkyic. See Matth. $ 289. 

0 Tiva Tavrrjv ;] Understand <pkpsig, i. e. rig tanv avrr\ rj 
ayytXia, irjv <pepeig. See Matth. § 264. So Euthyphro, p. 14. D. 
rig rj wQeXtia rolg Oeolg Tvyxdvu ovoa cnro twv dwpwv ; In such 
sentences the article indicates that mention has before been made of 
the thing spoken of. 

p fj rb ttXoXov dfiKTai ] This has been erroneously translated by 
Schleiermacher: “is the ship perhaps arrived from Delos,” &c. 
For the particle i}, which used generally to be put in. the first mem¬ 
ber of an interrogative sentence of two parts, afterwards began to be 
so taken that the first member was suppressed, and the fj had a re¬ 
stricting and correcting force. Therefore this passage is to be thus 
understood : but why do I askl the ship has certainly arrived, on the 
return of which, &c. — On the use of the infinitive TtOvavai, where 
aTroOvrjaicsiv might be expected, see Apolog. Socrat. C. XVII, 
note (z).— The Athenians, in gratitude for Apollo’s sending Theseus 
and his companions back in safety from Crete, sent annually a pub¬ 
lic embassy to Delos, to offer sacrifice to Apollo, and celebrate his 
praises in hymns. These ambassadors were called Beurpoi, or 
Btwpia, from the verb wpeiv, i. e. (ppovr'i^eiv, Bspamveiv, and the 
noun Beog, i. e. Apollo. From the time when the sacred ship was 
ornamented with a laurel crown until its return, it was unlawful to 



CRITO. 


153 


inflict punishment on condemned persons. See Xenoph. Mem. IV. 
8, 2. Since it happpened, that the ship was ornamented with 
the laurel crown the day before the condemnation of Socrates, 
and returned thirty days after, Socrates was thirty days in prison 
after his condemnation. See Phaedo, at the beginning. Xenoph. 
| ut supra. 

q aXXa doicti pkv pot ijZeiv'] After the verbs oJpai, SoKel, and 
others, pkv is often placed without being answered by 6k. See Her- 
1 mann on Viger, p. 800. and Heindorf on Phaedo, p. 5. But the 
sentence, which should be opposed to the other, is always easily un¬ 
derstood. The usual mode in which the deficiency is supplied is by 
understanding: aarpCjg 6 ' ovk o!8a. But since Crito says after¬ 
wards : 8rjXov ovv kic tovtiov twv ayykXurv, on ijZsi rrjpepov, it 
must be evident that something very different is required by the 
| sense, and even that the words doictZ pkv pot yieiv Trjpepov are 
i used with the delicacy of Attic speech to signify rj%,ei Trjpepov, which 
use of the verb Soksiv, very common among the Socratic speakers* 
has been illustrated with examples by Bergler, on Aristoph. Plut. 
v. 422. Ruhnken, on Tim. p. 281. In the same manner Phaedo, 
p. 61. C. arreipi 8k, wg eouce, Trjpepov. This being the case, I 
think that the sentence to which pkv is referred is contained in the 
preceding words ov toi 8rj cufiKTcu, so that it might have been 
written thus: to TtXoiov rj^ei pev Trjpepov, ov toi 8k cicfiKTcu .— 
Immediately afterwards utv dirayykXXovcriv is the same as Ik 
tovtojv d a.7rctyykXXov(Ti : according to those things which they re¬ 
port. Cicer. Epist. XVI. 22. ex tuis epistolis. — Sovviov, a pro¬ 
montory of Attica, situate in that part which faces the Cyclades and 
the ^Egaean Sea. 

II. a T\>xy ayaQy ] A well known form used by the Greeks as a 
good omen, when they themselves or others were undertaking any 
thing. It answers to the Latin quod bene vertat, quod felix faustum- 
que sit . See Sympos. p. 177. E. Thucyd. IV. 118. Therefore So¬ 
crates, hearing that he must die, is so far from fearing death, that he 
even considers it to be an object to be sought for as a blessing. 

h rj y av After voTepaiq, the particle fj is put, because 

that word has all the force of a comparative. Sympos. p. 173. A- 
ry vOTepaiq, rj y rd eTciv'uua eQvev avrog re icai oi %op£urat. See 
Wyttenbach on Phaedo, p. 314 sq. and Bast. Append. Epist. Crit. 
praef. p. VII. Instead of the optative eXQoi we have adopted the 
subjunctive : for the meaning is : on whatever day it may have re¬ 
turned. Compare Matth. § 527. 




154 


NOTES ON THE 


* $afft ye roi fir) ol rovrwv jcvpioi] That is, the Eleven, ot 
evfieica, who had the office of imprisoning and punishing those who 
were condemned by the public tribunals. These punishments are 
referred to by ravra. See note on Apolog. Socr. C. XXVII.—On the 
particles ye roi fir], which have the force of an affirmation with some 
restriction, see Hermann on Viger, p. 790. — reicpaipopai fie itc 
nvog — This is a common mode of using the verb rtKpaiptadai, 
where rovro or avro must be understood. See Rep. III. p. 406. D. 
Gorg. p. 484. B. Phaedo, p. 108. A. Lysid. p. 204. E. Hippias 
mai. p. 288. C. and elsewhere. The words bX'iyov irporepov are 
added, because dreams seen after midnight were thought true. See 
Homer’s Odyss. IV. v. 842 sqq. XX. v. 82 — 91. Hor. Satir. I. 
10, 33. Q'uirinus post mediam noctem visus, quum somnia vera. 

d ev k aipto rtj/i] Very opportunely . On the word icivfivvtveiv , 
which among the Attic writers signifies to seem, Timaeus Gloss, 
p. 159. Kivfivvevec eyyi^ei, where see Ruhnken. Compare also 
Valckenar on Herodot. IV. 105. Hindenburg on Xenophon, Mem. 
IV. 2, 34. 

e ’E^okci rig poi yvvij 7rp.] AokeTv is a verb used respecting 
dreams and visions. Euripid. Iphig. Taur. v. 44. efio%’ tv virvip. 
Orest, v. 402. efioZ’ ifitiv rpelg vvicri Trpog<ptptlg Kopag. Aristoph. 
Vesp. p. 31. ifio%e pot rrepi 7rpwrov inrvov ev ry ttvkvi eKKXrjiTid- 
%eiv k. t. X. — As persons appearing in dreams were believed to be 
divine, they are generally represented as more beautiful, large and 
august than human beings. Hence the woman, who appeared to 
Socrates, is called ica\r) icai evnfiyg, beautiful and well formed; and 
she is also spoken of as Xevicd iparia exovaa, having white garments, 
since the antients thought that spectres were arrayed in white ap¬ 
parel, on which see Commentators on Pliny’s Epist VII. 27.— 
XtvKa is the same as Xapnrpd, i. e. white or shining. See Thom. 
Mag. p. 566 sq. — The verse, which the woman is said to have 
recited, is taken from Iliad. IX. 363. They are the words of 
Achilles, in which he says that, being enraged by the insults of 
Agamemnon, he will return home, which he hopes to reach on the 
third day. In Homer the word is therefore l icoipr}v. Cicero de 
Divinat. I. 25, where he mentions this passage, thus translates the 
verse: Tertia te Phthiae tempestas laeta locabit. — Fischer has cor¬ 
rectly remarked that we are to understand Socrates to refer to that 
other life which he hoped for. 

f 'Qg dro7rov —] That is, how wonderful, wg QavpaoTov xai 
irapafioZov, as the word is correctly interpreted by Thomas M„ 


CRITO. 


155 


Phavorinus, and others. Phaedo, p. 60. B. wg cltottov ti — tones 
ilvai tovto, o KciXovffiv ot avOpcoxoi fiSv. — He calls this dream 
ivapysg, i. e. so clear and evident, that there is no need of conjec¬ 
turing or interpreting. — The particles p'tv ovv have the force of 
increasing and correcting : nay, nay indeed, as Gorg. p. 466. A. E. 
Legg* II. p. 655. Euthydem. p. 304. E. Hipp. mai. p. 283. B. 
Xenoph. Mem. III. 8, 4. Aristoph. Eq'uitt. v. 13. 910. and else¬ 
where. 

III. a aXX’, a> daipovis — ] By the words eti k at vvv, even 
now, now at least, he indicates that Crito had before made vain at¬ 
tempts to persuade Socrates to consult his safety by flight. 

b ov pia %vp<popd — apsXrioas] The sense is this: not one 
calamity only, but several, will happen to me if you die: for besides 
my being deprived of you, such a friend as I shall never find anywhere, 
J shall also incur the imputation of perfidy and worthlessness with 
those who do not sufficiently know you and me. The full expression 
would be: ov pia ZvpQopa scrriv ipoi, dXXa 7cXeiovg' %a>pt£ pev 
yap tov l<TTspr}<T0aL etc., but this is shortened by subjoining to 
dXXa the words containing the explanation of the suppressed part 
of the sentence opposed to ov pia %vp<popa egtiv. — To confirm the 
received reading %wpt£ tov iaTeprjaQai, which does not rest on the 
authority of MSS., I add some examples of the same construction. 
Sympos. p. 173. C. %wprc tov ohvQai uxpeXeloQai virtp^vwg wg 
Xaipco. Ibid. p. 184. B. ovdkv yap Sokei tovtiov ovte (3e(3aiov 
ovte povipov Elvai x w P l Q T °v pydt TTE(pvKtvai air avT&v ysv 
valav tyiXiav. Charmid. p. 44. B. Demosth. adv. Mid. p. 43. 
ed. Buttm. and elsewhere.— Remark pev and de united in the 
same clause of the same sentence. Some examples of this have 
been collected by Boeckhius Commentar. ad Pindar. T. II. P. II. 
p. 105. — The particle is not, with Buttman and others, to be 
referred to the infinitive apEXrjaai, as it never follows doicelv in 
that manner; it is to be connected with olog r u>v. See Matth. 
§ 568. The sense of the words is this: moreover 1 shall also 
appear to many, who do not sufficiently know me and you, to have 
neglected you, as if I were able, by expending money, to secure 
your safety. — It is not necessary here to have the particle dv 
so as to write wg olog r dv wv. See, on this point, Herm. on Eur. 
Hecub. v. 1087. Wunderlich on HDschinis Orat. in Ctesiph. p. 222. 
Bremi on Lys. p. 438 sqq. and the numerous examples collected by 
Schaefer. Melett. critt. p. 55. 

c Tavryg do£a r/ SokeIv] On this mode of speaking see Matth. 


156 


NOTES ON THE 


§ 468. c. C. XV. of Crito, (3e(3aiti<THQ — Tpv do%av, tiers Soksiv 
k. r. X. A similar redundance is found, Herodot. VIII. 4. 7rapa 
doZav — f/ tig avrol Karsfioicovv. 

d avra Ss drjXa ra 7rap6vra ] The reading SrjXoi, adopted by 
Stephens from the conjecture of Cornarius, although at first sight it 
may appear the true one, is unnecessary. We ought also to reject 
Fischer’s notion, derived from some misunderstood or corrupted 
passages of Theophrastus and Antoninus, that SfjXov has an active 
force and signification, and is equivalent to Si)Xwtik6v. For the 
writer passes, by a kind of anacoluthia, from a passive to an active 
construction. When Crito was about to add : on in ro rtiv 7roXXtiv 
i^sipyaap'tva sor'iv, he suddenly changes the construction, and ex¬ 
presses his idea much more emphatically, saying: on otot r's eiaiv 
oi rroXXoL k. t. X. 

e "iva oloi rs fjaav ] On this kind of construction, see note on 
Sympos. p. 181. B. Hermann on Viger. p. 850. The sense of the 
words is this: in order that they might also effect the greatest good, 
which is not in their power. 

f tovto, o n av rvxiocri] That is, they do not follow reason, but 
a certain blind impulse of their mind. Further on, C. V. o n av 
ru^fcxrt, tovto 7rpa^ovai. Protagor. p. 353. A. rr\v rtiv 7 roXXtiv 
So%av avQpunrwv, o'l o ti av tv\(oiti, tovto Xeyovcri. Sympos. 
p. 181. B. oOev drj Zvpfiait'ei avroXg, o ti av ru^coct, tovto 
7rpdrreiv. 

IV. a apd ye pr) Ipov 7rpop.'] These particles ask a question 
with a kind of suspicion of what we are unwilling should be the 
case : surely you are not concerned, etc. See Hermann on Viger. 
p. 842. Compare Schaefer. Melett. Critt. p. 66. — irpaypara 
napexsiv, to give trouble, or create annoyance to any one. This is 
often said of persons who annoy by accusations. For the word 
7Tpaypara is sometimes used simply in the sense of law-suits and 
quarrels. See Commentators on Aristoph. Plut. v. 20. 

t) Kai Traaav rpv ovaiav U7ro(ia.Xt'iv 1 r/ av^va That is, 

to lose either even all our property, or at least a great part of our 
wealth. It is easy to see why Kai is put in the first member of the 
sentence, and omitted in the second. In the third it is again added, 
because a new kind of danger is mentioned : for dXXo rt 7 ra 0 £ Tv is : 
lest we should ourselves be thrown into chains, punished by exile, or put 
to death. 

c taoov airb xarpetj/] That is, dismiss this fear. This con¬ 
struction has been illustrated by Valckenar on Herodot. IX. 41. on 


CRITO. 


157 

Eurip. Hippolyt. v. 113. and Heindorf on Thesetet. p. 441. — Re¬ 
specting the construction of the words ypeTg ydp ttov d'lKaioi ecrpev 

— Kivdvveveiv, see Matth. $ 296. Buttmann, § 138. 5. 

d Kai py aWwg noisi] So C. V. at the end, 7 reiOov poi Kai 
pydap&g dWojg rroiei. 

e M yre toLvvv ravra 0d/3ou] The thread of discourse, which is 
here broken, is resumed a little further on with the words : wgre — 
fxrjre ravra <po{3ov. It may be understood from this, why the copy¬ 
ists changed pyre into fit]. 

f rovrovg rovg avicoQavrag'] This is said contemptuously. Fur¬ 
ther on C. IX. rovrwv riov 7 roWwv. Demosthen. Philipp. I. 
p. 41. wapadeiypacn ry re rore pwpy rwv AaKedai- 

pov'aov — Kai ry vvv vfipei rovrov. Apolog. Socr. C. I. Rep. III. 
p. 403. A. Sympos. p. 181. E. Gorg. p. 452. E. 

8 67 r* avrovg] That is, to bribe (hem. 

h V7rapxei pev ra ipd xpypara ] My wealth is ready for you, 
is at your disposal: for hcava is added by apposition. See Sturtz’s 
Lexic. Xenophont. T. IV. p. 363. 

1 Zsvoi ovroi lv9d.de ] On this use of the pronoun ovrog, see 
Matth. $ 471. Bullm. §. 114. 1., and Schrefer. Melett. Critt. p. 77. 
foil. — Simmias and Cebes, Thebans and intimate friends of Socra¬ 
tes, are introduced disputing with him in the Phaedo. Some few par¬ 
ticulars concerning them are given in their lives by Laert. II. 124, 
and 125. and Suidas. A slight mention of them is also made, 
Epistol. Platonic. XIII. Both are said to have written something, 
but the Tabula, which goes under the name of Cebes, appears to be 
undeservedly ascribed to him. 

k pyre—cnroKapyg ] That is, be not despondent as to consulthig 
your safety. For C-rito, in his exceeding love towards his friend, 
forgot the principles of virtue, and imagined that Socrates himself 
was willing to consult his safety by flight. 

1 0 e\eyeg ev rip <5t»c.] See Apolog. C. XXVII. 

m '6 ri X9V° tfavry] As we say : what to do with yourself. So 
Gorg. p. 486. A. Sympos. p. 216. C. Xenoph. Anab. III. 1, 41. 
Jacobs compares Lucian. Accusat. 27. 0 n xPW ffalT0 tavnp ovk 
eldwg. Necyom. § 3. ovk eidwg 0 n xP r l <Tai l Jl V v tpavrip. Har- 
monid. 07rw£ poi XPV 0 tsov Kapavrip Kai ry r'exvy. So iEschin. 
adv. Ctesiphont. p. 76. ed. Bremi: cnropwv 6’ 0 n xpv <ralT0 a ^ T( P 

— piav e\7rida \ 01 rryv Karelde. 

n Kai aWoae ottoi av a^t'/cp] The ordinary construction would 
require dWaxov . But since oiroi follows, that which has been 

P 


158 


NOTES ON THE 


called attraction, by the later grammarians, produces aWoat. On 
which subject see Buttm. § 138. 1.4. I have therefore removed the 
comma from between aWoat and o7rot. 

V. a i%bv (TU)9rjvai'\ When you have it in your power to escape. 
See Matth. § 564. 

b oi%r)(T£i KctTaXnrwv] The word o? x^Oai indicates, 1 think, 
the quickness of the action, and the eagerness of the agent. It might 
be rendered in Latin by confestim deseres. Other examples have 
been collected by Matthiae, § 559. c. 

« to <rov ptpog'] As far as in you lies, as far as you are concerned, 
as C. XI. and XVI. 

A o ti av — 7 rpd%ov<Ti'] That is, they will undergo that lot which 
the will of fortune may assign to them ; whatever may happen to them. 
For the word irparTtiv is taken in the sense of having good or ill 
fortune, as in the phrases tv 7 rpaTTtiv and kcocwq tt parreiv. Remark 
the use of the pronoun rovro, for which, according to the usual con¬ 
struction, some adverb would be substituted. But in the same man¬ 
ner Eurip. Troad. v. 700. 7r pa%uv ti Ktbvov, where Seidler says, 
that phrase is employed for tv npaZtiv. Eurip. Iphig. Aul. v. 345. 
Trpdaativ ptyaXa the same as paX’ tvrvxtiv. 

e rd pyQvpoTctTct aiptiaQai ] 'PfQvpa means, those things 
which are worthy of a trifling, slothful, and inconstant person. Ser- 
ranus has well rendered the sentence thus: Tu autem mihi videris 
ea, quae cum maxima pigritia atque supinitate conjuncta sunt, ele- 
gisse. 

f vTr'tp <tov — alayy vojuat] Theaet. p. 490. E. aicrxwoiptjv 
yap av virip rjpwv. 

B Kai r) tlgodog rijg dlicyg tig to liKaorripiov ] Forster and 
others, observing that the words rrjg dhcrjg, were not translated by 
Ficinus, suspected that they were a gloss. But since r) SIkij is very 
frequently said tigitvai or tigipx S(T ^ ai > on which point see Casaubon 
on Theophrast. p. 157. also Buttm. index ad Demosthen. orat. 
Midian, under this word,— why should it not be correct to say rj tig- 
obog rrjg diKrjg? Fischer, Schleiermacher, and Buttmann defend 
the common reading in the same manner. The words tig to duca~ 
(TTrjpiov, which Schleiermacher thought ought to be rejected, are 
sometimes added when the cause itself is said, tigdvat or dgtpxta- 
Bai. Demosthen. adv. Phormion. T. II. p. 912. 27. ptWovoyg 
rr/g SUrjg tigitvai tig to diKaarrjpiov. The phrase t) tigocog rijg 
SiKrjg, is used when the prosecutor and the accused are admitted to 
plead the cause before the judge. See Schoemann and Meier’s 


CRITO. 


159 


“Attische Process” p. 705 foil. Therefore the words cog dgrjXOeg , i^bv 
firf slgeXOdiv are added for the purpose of interpretation. It may, 
however, be doubted whether it ought not to be written cog tigrjXOtv, 
which was preferred by Wolf, especially since that learned commen¬ 
tator found it in some good MSS. The word l%6v seems to favour 
the reading tigrjXOeg. — e%ov prj slgeXOeTv . The commentators differ 
in their explanation of these words. Some suspect that reference is 
made to that law which Lysias, p. 354. ed. Reisk. mentions, and 
according to which it was permitted : dedion diKrjg evtica dpaaicd- 

iv, that is, to one distrusting the issue of his cause, to go into volun¬ 
tary exile: others prefer referring these words to Anytus, who, ac¬ 
cording to Libanius, T. I. p. 644., after commencing the prosecution, 
wished to be reconciled to Socrates on certain conditions. This 
opinion is certainly erroneous, since in public causes, when the 
prosecutor had once appealed to the magistrates, he had no longer 
the power of compromising the matter with the accused. See Meier 
and Schoemann’s “ Attische Process,” p. 702. and a learned ex¬ 
position of the subject by Hudtwalcker de Diaetetis Atheniens. 
p. 159 foil. 

h avrog 6 ayu>v Trjg diKijg'] These words are to be referred to the 
contest before the judges, that is, to the orations pronounced, but 
principally to the defence of Socrates. 

1 wf7rep KaTaytXoig rrjg 7rpa%e(og~\ “ The whole transaction re¬ 
sembles a comic or tragic drama, which has three parts, 7r poraoig, 
iTTiTCKTig , Karaarpocpr]. Thus the coming before the judges might 
be called the 7r poramg ; the pleading of the cause, the iniraaig • 
and finally the fact that Socrates was not saved, the catastrophe, 
which Plato here calls KardyeXtog.” Cornar. In Crito’s opinion 
this issue of the business is ridiculous. He therefore calls it kcltci- 
yeXojg, a ridiculous or preposterous turn which the drama has 
taken. 

k dicnre<pevyevcu ypag do/cstr] The words to TtXtvraiov dy tovtL 
are connected with the words uirav to i rpaypa Trtirpdx^cu in appo¬ 
sition with what goes before /cat rj eigodog rrjg diKrjg and /cat avTog 
o ayoov rrjg diKrjg. For three things are mentioned by Crito, as 
probable sources of reproach to the friends of Socrates : the begin¬ 
ning of the cause, the defence made, and finally the issue of the trial, 
and to KaKiy r. k. a. t. rip. dia7r£<p6vykvai SoksIv. For the infini¬ 
tive dia 7 rs<pevyevat Sokuv is added by epexegesis, as the grammari¬ 
ans call it, to the words to TeXevTaiov drj tovti, according to a 
common construction. Gorg. p. 469. C. aXX' tyu>ye tovto Xtyw, 


160 


NOTES ON THE 


07r(p apn, t%elvai iv rrj 7t6Xh , o av boKy avrip, ttoieXv tovto, 
where Heindorf incorrectly suggests the reading to eZelvai. Phae- 
do, p. 78. C. ap’ ovv T(p pikv <jvvte9evti te k al awdsTip ovti 
<j)V<T£l TTpOQTJKEl TOVTO 7ra<T^ftV, dlCUpeOfjvai TCtVTy, y7T£p aw- 
eteOij. — The infinitive SicnreQEvysvcu is put absolutely, rov k'iv- 
bvvov being understood. This usage is frequent, as may be seen 
from the Lexicons to Thucydides and Xenophon. — The infinitive 
boKslv, after fiy bo%y uirav to irpayfia —7T67rpa%0ai, might appear 
on a first view to be added by a kind of negligence or redundance, 
such as we perceive, in C. III., in the words: Kai rot rig av 
alax'aw e ” lT l tuvtijq bo%a r) boKslv xpyixara 7TEpl kXsiovog 7roi- 
ElaOai y QiXovg ; but, considering the matter more closely, it ap¬ 
pears that the word Sokeiv could not well be omitted in this passage. 
For if Crito said: dia7TE(pevyEvai yp,ag, he might appear to admit 
the truth of the reproach which, he says, will be urged against him¬ 
self and the other friends of Socrates; especially since he has been 
enumerating circumstances which were really true. For it was true 
that Socrates had appeared before the tribunal, and also that he had 
made his defence, which is called 6 ayajv rfjg SiKrjg. Hence 
it appears that the passage needs no emendation, and that there is no 
anacoluthia in it, as some have supposed. 

1 ovSe av aavrov] These words at first seem to destroy the sense. 
For Crito is now speaking, not of the carelessness of Socrates himself 
respecting his safety, but of the apparent carelessness and apathy of 
his friends, who would seem to have deserted their master, and con¬ 
sulted nothing but their own safety. But these words contain an 
excuse or defence against the view which will be taken of the con¬ 
duct of the friends of Socrates ; and this defence consists of a gentle 
reproach of Socrates, of whom Crito complains, with generous indig¬ 
nation, for not availing himself of the means of escape provided by 
his friends. The passage may be thus rendered : toho have not saved 
you, (nor would you save yourself ,) when it might have been 
done. 

m ei Tt Kai — rjp.Civ ocpsXog yv~\ See Apolog. Socrat. C. XVI. 
note (g). Compare Hemsterhus. on Lucian’s Tim. c. 55. A little 
further on ap,a T(p KaK(p is used in the same manner as tt pog r<p 

KaKtp. 

n [idXXov be ovbe /3ov\.] MaXXoi' be is or rather, nay indeed. 
Jt is no longer the season to deliberate, but to have already deliberated , 
i. e. to have come to a resolution. \ 

VI. a y) TTQoQvpia <rov — opOoTrjTog etq] That is, Your zeal 


CRITO. 


161 


for my preservation is very much to be approved of and praised, if it 
were joined with rectitude of principle. With a£ta is to be under¬ 
stood lari, which is often omitted, on which point see Schaefer on 
Lambert. Bos. p. 605. Matth. § 304. — On the optative drj after 
the indicative, see Matth. § 524. 8. 

b oto£ Tutv Ipwv —] That is, cigrs — vtiQsoQai. See Matth. 
§ 479. 2, 3.— Td Ipd, the things which belong to me, as well passions 
and inclinations of the mind, as things extrinsic. 

c ov Svvapai Ik/ SaXcZv] That is, to reject, to repudiate. For 
the words are opposed to npav and Trpsafitvtiv. ’EK/3d\\fiv is 
properly to cast out, to throiv away, and is said of things that are use¬ 
less, which we do not care about: hence it often means to spurn, to 
despise. 

d 7rpe<r(3ev<t) teal Pollux Onom. IT. 12. irpsa^sveiv, to 

Tipav irapa HXdrwvi. Sympos. p. 186. B. "iva Kai TrptofSevojptv 
rijv Texvrjv. Ibid. p. 187. C. lav py — prjdl ripy re avrov Kai 
irptofiivy. ASschyl. Choeph. v. 480. Eumenid. v. 1. Eunp. 
Hippolyt. v. 5. Alcest. v. 282. 

e oti ov prj (to i %vyxo)pr](Ut)] That I certainly will not yield 
to you. 

f ovd* av 7r\ei(x) twv vvv Trapovrwv — ] According to Butt- 
mann, the order of the words is: ov& av y tu>v tt oX\d>v Svvapig 
poppoXvTTrjTai ypag wgirep 7ralSag, iTwrlpnrovGa ttXsLm, dto- 
povg k. r. X. This I do not agree with. For ttX tiw is to be con¬ 
nected with poppoXvrrrjTai, and is an accusative absolute put for 
an adverb: the collocation of the words confirms this view. So 
further on, C. XIV. near the end, tXarrw aTredrjprjGag. Rep. III. 
p. 396. C. Mop/to\urr£<r0at is to frighten children by gestures and 
by pronouncing the word M oppw, as is correctly remarked by Gesner, 
on Claudian. Carm. XXXI. v. 111. Hence it means to terrify or 
frighten a person by objects calculated to inspire fear ; or generally, 
to terrify, to intimidate, but the terror meant is generally groundless. 
The active poppoXvTTsiv is only found in the works of gramma¬ 
rians : the Attic writers always say poppoXvTTtoQai. —‘ The word 
kTwrlpTTtiv, like the Latin immittere, is said of what is suddenly 
and forcibly presented before a person, as is remarked by Hemsteihus. 
on Lucian. T. I. p. 208. 

e icaiOavdrovg — Kai dcpaipkatig] The plural number is used 
for the sake of greater emphasis. Nouns of this kind, when violence 
and cruelty are indicated, are often put in the plural. Compare 
Seidler on Eurip. Electr. v. 479. Achilles Tat. VIII. 8. Kai Oavd- 

p 3 


162 


NOTES ON THE 


roig icai dtfffidiQ 7rapa6oQkvrag. Plat. Laches, p. 191. D. boot 
7 rpog 7 T£viag av6ptloi tiai. So mortes in Cicer. Tusc. III. 4, de 
Fin. I. 8, neces Catil. I. 7. 

h Tlujg ovv av psTpitbrara GKorroipfOa ] GKOTreiaGai 

is to inquire as is proper, as agrees with the matter under consideration, 
as the matter demands, i. e. well, correctly. So perpiwg Xkyeiv is 
used, and other phrases of the kind, as Theaet. p. 180. C. Kep. IV. 
p. 421. C. VI. p. 484. B. and elsewhere. — These words are com¬ 
monly assigned to Crito, but the question does not come appropri¬ 
ately from him. Moreover, the speakers in Plato are wont to put 
questions to themselves, and immediately afterwards to give the re¬ 
quired answers ; by which the style is enlivened. See Gorg. p. 457. 
E. Protagor. p. 343. B. 

1 rov \6yov avakafioifitv — ] The word avaXapflaveiv is to 
treat anew, to resume the investigation. Fischer is wrong in trans¬ 
lating it simply to inquire, to examine, to investigate. For reference 
is made to what had been previously said by Socrates on the same 
subject; which investigation he now proposes to renew. For the 
words TTortpov KaXwg hXkyf.ro tKaaroTf r, ov, are to be understood 
thus : Whether on the several occasions when we formerly argued this 
point, was it correctly said, or not, that “ some opinions of men are to 
be regarded , others not.” 

k ov <rv Xey£f£] That is, which you mention, namely in C. III. 
and V. 

1 vvv 6k KaradtjXog apa hykvtro ] On this construction see 
Matth. $ 296. Buttmann, § 135. 5. On the use of the particles 
6k apa, see Apology, C. XXIII. note ( e ). 

m aXXwf evtKa \6yov] These words are used he TrapaXX-qXov. 
For aXXwg, i. e. rashly, without reason, is explained by the phrase 
eveica Xoyov, for form’s sake. On which see Heindorf, on Theaetet. 
p. 452. — t7Tfi6iij u>6e £%<«>, Since the danger of death threatens me, 
after I have come to be in danger of my life. — The form rt Xkytiv 
is opposed to fXvaptiv and XyptXv, whence it is easy to determine 
its signification. See Viger, p. 731. 

M oaa yt rdv9pu)7reia'] That is, as indeed human affairs are, i. e. 
as far at least as may be conjectured from what usually happens to men. 
The word t rapaicpoveiv Hesychius interprets hZairarav, irXavav. 
Which signification has arisen from the artifice in wrestling rov 
rrapaKpovuv 7ro6t ij %eipi. See Etym. Magn. under the word, 
and Buttmann on Phaedr. p. 383. 2nd. ed. Heind. The sense 


CRITO. 


163 


therefore is this: For the present calamity cannot so influence you, as 
to lead you away from the correct mode of judging. 

0 oi>x heav&g doKei ] Here waving is the same as kccX&q which 
goes before. The use of the word npav in this passage is worthy of 
remark. It often signifies to cultivate, to regard, to esteem highly, so 
as to be opposed to the word anpaZeiv. Eurip. Iphig. in Taur. 
v. 54. Kayw rkxvyv rrjvd’ , yv Zevoktovov, TifiSxf, vdpaivov 
avrov d)Q Gavovpsvov KXaovaa. Plat. Gorg. p. 462. D. (3ovXe t 
ovv, hreidi) Tipqg to xapi££<70ai, apiKpov ri [xoi xapt^£<r0at; So 
further on, C. VIE. 

VII. a Kai tovto TrpaTTWv ] And doing this attentively or zea¬ 
lously. In the same manner Xenoph. Hellen. IV. 8, 22. del, rrpbg 
<i> Eirj epy(p, tovto ex rpaTTEV .— The preceding words, ir&g av ret 
roiavra eXeyero ; are to be thus understood : Whether were they said 
rightly or wrongly ? The imperfect tense indicates that reference is 
made to the discourses of a former period on the same subject. 

b o£ av Tvyxdvy larpog rj TraitioTpifirjg wv The sense is 
this : Or will he only regard the opinion of the person who presides over 
the exercises, and prescribes the regimen, whoever he may be? It ap¬ 
pears therefore that the word ought to be written Tvyxavtj. Fis¬ 
cher attempts to defend the common reading, og av ruy%av£i, 
which is entirely contrary to grammatical usage. It is also erroneous 
to use the optative rvyxdvoi, which would give this sense : Or will 
he regard the opinion of him only who irould be master of the exercises 
and physician, that is, if some other circumstances took place. For the 
optative with av signifies that the sense is to be taken hypothetically. 
— iarpog, in this passage, is the same person who is also called 
yupvaaryg: his office was to prescribe the diet and regimen to 
future athletes, and to all persons who put themselves under his 
care to be trained in corporeal exercises (roig yvpvaZojusvoig), as 
may be seen from Xenoph. Mem. II. 1, 26. and other passages. 
To this person reference is made in the words edeareov ye Kai 
7 roTsov. — 7rai5oTpifSt]g is the master of the exercises who used to 
teach wrestling to the young men in the palaestra. The words tI 
irpaKTEOv Kai yvpvaariov refer to the office of this person. The 
subject has been illustrated more extensively by Perizon. on ^Elian. 
V. H. II. 6. Fabricius on Sext. Empir. p. 535. Commentators on 
Aristoph. Nubb. v. 969. — In enumerating several particulars, the 
particle ye is added to the word which commences, as it were, a new 
class of notions. See Heindorf on Hipp. Maj. p. 174. 


164 


NOTES ON THE 


c o rtf piv SiKaitp (SiXnov — aTrujWvTo ;] I am surprised at 
Buttmann’s finding so much difficulty in accounting for the imper¬ 
fects in this passage. He quotes Theodoret, who has copied this 
passage, Curr. Affect. Grsec. II. p. 27., as an authority for reading 
kyivero — d7ru>Xero, so that the aorist may indicate customary acts. 
But this mode of using the aorist does not apply to this passage, 
and moreover Theodoret does not write a7rw\ero, but cnroWvTcu, 
which has been violently changed by Buttmann. I think that the 
imperfect may be easily accounted for; since Socrates before used the 
imperfect when he opened the present disquisition, saying, ttS>q av 
ra roiavra iXiyero ; whjr should he not here also use the same 
tense, to indicate that he was referring to the remarks which he had 
formerly made on the same topic with his friends'? The common 
reading may therefore be thus paraphrased : 8 r<p piv SiKaitp 
(SsXtiov ylyvsaOai, r<p Si aS'iKtp dTroXXvaOai kXiyero ttcdorors 
v<p’ ypwv 7 repi twv toiovtwv SiaXsyopivwv. The imperfect is 
here correctly employed to indicate the repetition of an action, but 
in a very different sense from that in which the aorist could be used 
for that purpose. See Matth. § 503. 

VIII. a 7rsi66fievoi pi) ry twv inaiovroiv So%y] Fischer has a 
long dissertation on this passage concerning the inversion of the 
order of words in the best writers by some such figure as synchysis or 
hyperbaton : but he appears to have overlooked the reason of the 
arrangement of the words in this passage. But it has been correctly 
remarked by Langius that py is put before the words ry twv %Trdi- 
ovtwv 86%y, because another sentence in opposition, to be connected 
by aXXd with what goes before, must be understood. We may ac¬ 
count in like manner for a passage in Xenoph. Memor. III. 9, 6. to 
dk ayvoslv tavrov Kai py & olSe So%d£siv re icai olsuOai yiyvw- 
(tksiv, kyyvraTw paviag kXoyi^sTo elvai, although the later editors 
have written, contrary to the MSS., a py olSe. The following passages 
are also similar to the present. Xenoph. Symp. IV. 16. paivovrai 
Se icai oi py tovq koXovq arpaTyyovg aipovpevoi. Understand 
dXXd tovq ai(T X povg. Legg. XII. p. 943. A. kdv Si rig ^Xelrry 
tivi KaKy, py OTparyywv atpivTWv, ypatpag darpaTeiag elvai 
irpog rovg 7roXeiUKovg ap X ovTag, orav eXQwaiv cnro <rrparo 7 riSov. 
Phaedo, p. 77. E. paXXov Si py wg ypwv SsSiotwv .— dpa fiiw- 
tov. That is, whether life is worth living for, i. e. agreeable and 
pleasant. 

b AXXa per ikuvov apa~\ Here aXXa — dpa is used in the 
same manner as Si — dpa in C. VI. 


CRITO. 


165 


e $ to aSiKov fx'tv Xw/3arai] In conformity with all the best 
MSS. I have retained <£», which all the more recent editors, except 
Bekker, have changed into o, as it is written in Eusebius. For the 
verb Xw/3a<x0ai may also be joined to a dative, as appears from 
Phrynich. in Bekker’s Anecdot. T. I. p. 50. who writes : Aw/3 aaOai 
rovde ical TipSe, ainariKy ical Sotik-ij. Aristoph. Equitt. v. 1413. 
tv iSwcriv avrov, olg kXwfiaoO ’, ol %tvot, where the common reading 
was ovg, which Dindorf corrected from the Ravenna MS. Other 
examples are quoted by Cieuzer on Plotinus de Pulcritud. p. 244., 
among others Dionys. Halic. Antiq. Rom. VII. 77. fin. p. 1501. ed. 
Reisk. (17 (3ovXr) ) ava^yrycracra t'ov Tip Gtpcnrovn Xwfiyoapitvov. 
The reason why the dative is changed by Eusebius into the accusa¬ 
tive is easily accounted for. The word dvivycriv immediately fol¬ 
lows, and this is never used with any case but the accusative. But 
it is not unusual to put the relative pronoun before verbs of different 
constructions. Menexen. p. 239. C. wv Sk ovts tt oiyryg 7 rw So%av 
a%iav — Xa/ 3iov f%£i, tri re sorlv tv pivyoTtiq,. Sympos. p. 201. 

B. d>[xo\6y7]Tai, ov tvStyg £<m ical fit] tx ei > tovtov kpav . Com¬ 
pare Matth. § 428. 2. 

d y <pav\oTtpov] Timaeus rightly interprets <pavXov by eSts Xkg. 
For it is here opposed to Tiputbrepov. See lluhnken on Tim. 

p. 268. 

e <ppovTi<rrkov, tL kpovaiv'} The common reading o ti kpovai, 
may have originated with the grammarians, in consequence of the 
o n which occurs in the next line. Phileb. p. 17. B. dXX’ on 
(laftev) 7 r oaa re Ian Kai oirola. Gorg. p. 500. A. dp’ ovv rrav - 
Tog avSpog egtiv e/eXei-arrOai Trola ayaQa tuiv ySewv kcrrl ical 
oTTola icaicd; Ibid. p. 448. E. aXX’ ovSeig kpiorq,, iroia Tig tit] 
r) Topyiov texvt], aXXa Tig, ical ovnva Skoi icaXsIv tov Topylav. 
Phaedr. p. 271. A. Charmid. p. 160. D. Republ. III. p. 414. D, 
IX. p.578. E. Legg.I.p. 632. C. VI. p. 767. C. VII. p. 803. 
A. Alcibiad. I. p. 111. E. p. 114. A. Demosth. De Coron. 
p. 275, extr. R. iEschin. adv. Ctesiph. § 14. Xenoph. Mem. I. 
1, 13. Other examples have been collected by Lobeck on Phryni- 
chus, p. 57. On the verb kpovaiv with two accusatives, see Apology, 

C. IX. note (e). 

f ovk opOwg eigrjyeT] Ei’^yao-Oai is said of those who propose 
and -urge any law or condition: hence, those who are advisers of any 
thing. See Sturlz’s Lexicon. Xenophont. under this word. 

g ArjXa Si) ical ravra' cpah] yap av, w 2.] 1 he MsS. vary 

much in this passage. The principal doubt is whether the words 





166 


NOTES ON THE 


SrjXa St) icat ravra belong to the speech of Socrates, or to Crito’s 
answer. The former opinion, on the authority of Aid. Bas. 1. 2., is 
held by Buttmann ; the latter by Cornarius and Stcphanus, who think 
that the words ought to be written : AijXaSfj Kai ravra <paiij y* av 
rig, J) 2. The first reading is objected to from the want of force, 
which would certainly be felt, if Socrates first were to affirm that the 
thing was manifest; then Crito to confirm this assertion ; and Socra¬ 
tes finally again to express his approbation of the same opinion. 
But the reading suggested by Cornarius and Stephanus is inadmissible, 
since all the MSS. have yap, and SrjXaSri does not suit well with 
the remainder of the sentence. Wherefore we prefer the reading 
already restored by Im. Bekker, by which all difficulty is removed. 
For after Socrates has said that some may urge that the opinion of 
the vulgar is to be regarded on account of their power being so great 
as to enable them even to deprive of life whomsoever they please; 
Crito eagerly answers that this is manifest, for that certainly it might 
occur that some person would offer this objection. To this Socrates 
answers: ’A XrjQij Xeyeig, that is, you are very right in saying that 
this is evident, but-; and he proceeds to show the groundless¬ 

ness of the objection. 

h dXX’ — opotog tlvai rip /cal 7r ( oorepov'] That is, what we 
before said, that all opinions of men are not to be regarded and fol¬ 
lowed, but only the opinions of persons deservedly reputed wise, still 
remains certain, and has not been shaken by any argument. For what 
Socrates had affirmed, (C. VI. near the beginning,) before entering 
on the discussion, respecting the opinions of men, namely, that even 
under his present circumstances he ought to be guided by the same 
principles which had actuated him during the former part of his life, 
he now repeats and confirms in a few words at the close of the dis¬ 
cussion. Therefore ovrog 6 Xoyog, ov SieXrjXvQapsv means the 
discourse on the opinions of the vulgar, which discourse, he says, 
in opoiov eivai np Kai 7 rporepov, i. e. differs not from the senti¬ 
ments to which he had formerly given utterance in conversation with 
his friends on the same subject, before he was prosecuted and con¬ 
demned. For there can be no doubt that 6 Kai wporepov XexOdg 
Xoyog refers to a discussion he had formerly had with his friends on 
the same topic. Since this is the case, it is easy to see how the 
words, Kai rovSe av GKowei, el in p'evei r)piv, ought to be under¬ 
stood. For since Socrates intended to speak respecting the love of 
life, and the desire of preserving it, he desires Crito to consider 




CRITO. 


167 


whether their former opinions on this subject are still to be regarded 
as right and true. But as these words are connected with what goes 
immediately before, it is evident that the received reading: ovtoq re 
6 Xoyog — Kai irporspov Kai rov8e av OKoirti, is far preferable to 
that of the old editions : ovtoq ye 6 Xoyog — irpoTtpov. Kai rovSe 
8k av gkotth. So Kai av placed after re. Charmid. p. 157. E. 
i / re yap rrarpya ypTv oiKia — iyKtKwpiaapkvr ],— feat atf rj tt pbg 
prjrpog wgavTwg. 

IX. a Ik twv opoXoyovpkvwv] That is, from the principles in 
which ue agree. There is no need of the correction wpoXoyypkvwv. 
See Sympos. p. 200. B. and compare Heindorf’s remarks on Hipp. maj. 
p. 180. iEschin. adv. Ctesiph. $ 13. to 8okhv pkv aXrjQij Xsyeiv, 
apxcuct 8k Kai Xiav opoXoyovpeva, where Markland preferred 
wpoXoyypkva. 

b prj a<pikvTiov ’AQijvaiwv'] That is, the Athenians not permit- 
ting me to be freed from punishment. Therefore there is no necessity 
for writing k<pikvTwv, which appears in the Tubing. MS., and one of 
Paris. The word is used in the same manner in Eurip. Med. v. 374. 
rr]v8’ a<pr}K£v r/pepav ptivai pe, i. e. permitted me to remain, miti¬ 
gating the former severity. 

c 7 Tspi avaXwoewQ \pr]p.dTO}v~\ That is, that you and others 
ought to give money, to rescue me from prison. See C. IV. 

d Kai 86 Ztiq'] That is, lest you should appear to have failed in 
your duty toivards your friend. See C. III. 

e Kai 7 rai8o)V Tpofprjg'] That is, that I ought to bring up and 
educate my sons. See C. V. Before prj. here and a little further 
on, understand opa, which word is expressed in C. X. Compare 
Matth. § 632. 2. 

f < TKsppara ] Reasons, considerations, principles, before called 

ffKSTpElQ. 

8 tG>v p<f.8i(i)Q a 7 roKTivvvvT<t)v'\ That is, by their votes.— The 
verb avapiuxJKtoQai is to recall to life, to restore life, for your own 
benefit, if you profit by it, as Fischer rightly interprets. So Phaedo, 
p. 89. B. Wyttenbach, Epistol. crit. p. 232. ed. Lips., thought it 
ought to be read ava(3u»(TKopkvu)v y* av. But this is erroneous. 
For dv joined to participles has the same force as when added to the 
tenses of the optative, or to the imperfect and aorist indicative. 
Therefore the words are to be explained thus: f cal tovtwv, o'i dve- 
B^orri y &v, d old rt f,<rav. See Matth. § 598. b. Buttm. 
§ 126. 14. The words tovtiov twv i roXXwv are added by appo- 


168 


NOTES ON THE 


sition, with a kind of contempt, on which use of the pronoun ovrog 
see C. IV. note (*)> on the words e-keitcl ov% opq.g tovtovq tovq 
avKO<pdvTag. 

h 6 Xoyog ovtojq atpa] Since reason so dictates . See Heindorf, 
on Euthydem. p. 232. Gataker, on Anton. IV. 24. Dorvill, on 
Charit. p. 645.—A little further on, with %apira£*, which properly 
depends on TeXovvreg, we must understand E\ovTEg or tidoT£g y 
on which construction see Wesseling on Diodor. IV. p. 270. Dor¬ 
vill on Chariton, p. 440 foil. Ernesti on Xenoph. Mem. II. 1. 

* py oi) deij vTroXoyiZeaQcu — 7rpo tov adiKEiv] Apolog. C. 
XVI. prjd'ev vKoXoyiZopevov prjTE Odvarov prjTE aXXo fiijd'ev 
7rpo tov abxpov. The sense is this: See whether it is not improper 
to consider whether death or other calamities may result from our re¬ 
maining here, previously to considering whether we shall do right or 
not. TJapapeveiv is to remain in custody, and not to escape: it is 
used principally of faithful slaves, rrapapovoi, to whom are opposed 
ot aTTodidpacTKovTEg, fugitives. See Xenoph. Oec. III. 4. 

k wg eyw rrepi 7roXXov — aXXa prj dteovTog ] Various attempts 
have been made to explain this passage ; but none of them appear 
perfectly satisfactory. The principal point- in dispute is whether 
Socrates or Crito is the subject of the infinitive tteXocu. If we take 
Socrates as the subject, ravra 7rpa.TTEiv must signify ttciveoQcu 
XkyovTa 7 roXXuKig tov clvtov Xoyov, and to aKOvrog we must 
supply <jov. The sense would then be: I am very desirous to per¬ 
suade you (Crito) not to repeat again and again the same thing, 
provided this be not done against your will. But although this inter¬ 
pretation is approved of by Buttmann and Wernsdorf, it appears to 
me very objectionable. For, besides the fact that no example of such 
a use of the verb irpuTTEiv has been produced, it appears inconsistent 
with the character of Socrates to wish to press his opinion on Crito in 
so urgent a manner. — If Crito be considered the subject, we must 
understand pov with aKovrog. The meaning will then be : I esteem 
it a great favour that you again and again attempt to persuade me to 
do this (i.e. to escape), only do not do so against mp will. This, 
if carefully considered, means : I indeed prize highly your generous 
friendship, which prompts you to urge this counsel on me repeatedly 
(for the aorist indicates this repetition) ; but do not leave out of con¬ 
sideration my own will and opinion, since I am accustomed to be 
influenced not by motives, derived from external things, but solely 
by considerations of truth and virtue. This interpretation is con- 


CRITO. 


169 


firmed by what goes before, £t ivy t^ug avriXeyeiv efiov Xeyovrog 
k. t. X. ; for what is said there, ei de /At], iravaai r]dr] — tt oXXaKig 
poi Xkyuiv tov avrov Xoyov, is here more briefly expressed by the 
words, dXXa fit) clkovtoq. The verb TTparreiv is therefore used in 
its proper signification. Socrates says emphatically that Crito is 
attempting to persuade him to do this, i. e. to contrive the means of 
escaping. — Before prj repeat tt eiayg, from the preceding sentence ; 
which expression cannot be regarded as harsh, when we recollect the 
frequent occurrence of the phrases prj pot, fir] fioi ovrcog, fir] fioi 
ravra, which have been explained by Heindorf, on Protagor. p. 494. 
— Instead of prj aicovrog the proper construction would have been 
fir] aKovra , which is extant in some MSS., but perhaps this passage 
is to be numbered amongst those in which the genitive is used with¬ 
out regard to the preceding verb. A passage very like this is in 
Thucyd. VII. 48. : xprjfiaTCJV pev a7ropi<ji avTovg eKrpvxuxreiv, 
aXXojg re Kai hri tcX'sov r'fdrj raXg vTcapxovaaig vavcri 9aXaaao- 
KpcirovvToiv. Compare Matth. § 563. 

X. a tKovrag adiKyreov elvai] The grammarians commonly 
state that verbals require a dative of the person; but an accusative 
also is used with them. The reason is, that they contain the notion 
of the verb deXv or XPW VCII > s0 ddiKrjreov elvai is the same as 
adiiceXv deXv. See ftlatth. Gr. § 447. a. 

b kKKex v ^ vai £ ^ <Tt ] Have been poured out, i. e. throivn away. 
Jacobs appropriately compares the expression with ikx&v ttXovtov, 
kKxdv xphi xaTa ’ The words yepovrsg avdpeg, which might have 
been omitted, are inserted in consequence of the strong opposition to 
7r aidiov. 

c rj 7 TtxvTog juaXXov] UavTog paXXov, instead of which it av- 
tojv fiaXXov, is also used. — It means; most of all , beyond all dis¬ 
pute. See Hemsler. on Lucian. I. p. 173. 

d ofiiog to ye dduceXv — ] Compare Gorgias, p. 469., where 
being asked, av apa /3 ovXoio av ddnceXa9ai fiaXXov r/ aduceXv, he 
gave this most excellent answer: (3ovXoipr]v pev av eywye ovd'e- 
repa’ ei d’ avayicaXov eh] dduceXv y aduceXaOai, eXoiprjv av fiaX¬ 
Xov ddiKeXa9ai rj dduceXv. 

e a>g oi TroXXoi oiovrai] Archilochus in Theophil. ad Autolyc. 
II. 37. ev d’ eiriaTapai fi'eya, to Kaicwg ti dpiovra deivoXg 
dvTapei(3ea9ai icaicoXg: Solon in Brunck’s Poet. Gnom. p.73. eXvai 
de yXvKvv tide fiXoig, ex^poXai de rriKpoV toXgi pev aidoXov, 
roXai de deivov ideXv. Fragment. Eurip. in Valcken. p. 157. i X e P^ 

Q 


170 


NOTES ON THE 


kciicCjq fipav avfipbg r)yovpai p'epog. 1 hat this was the general 
opinion is shown by the works of most ancient writers. For to re¬ 
venge an injury was regarded as the characteristic of a brave 
spirit. 

f ovfi’ av otiovv ttcktxV vtt civtu)V~\ That is, even if he he sub¬ 
jected to the most grievous injuries. After 7ra<r%y Eusebius and 
Theodoret insert rig, without any necessity, since in the preceding 
del avTafiiKeXv there is a latent signification of an indefinite per¬ 
son. 

K (Tkottsi fir] ovv k. <T. iv paXa] Ovv fir] and firj ovv are not 
used indiscriminately. Euthyph. c. IV. ravra firj ovv. Phaedo, 
p. 61. E. /card ri firj ovv tv ore ov <pacn. Theaet. p. 148. A. rig 
fir) ovv, w ral, XsLTrtrat \6yog. Men. p. 92. A. On the other 
hand, ovv firj is found in Protag. p. 333. A. Sophist, p. 261. D. 
and elsewhere. 

h cog oi)fit7rort opOoig ixovrog ] That is, taking it never to he 
right. Rep. IV. p. 437. A. viroQ'epevoi cog rovrov ovrtog £%ov- 
rog. Protagor. p. 323. E. evOev fie tt cig 7 ravri Ovpovrai Kai 
vovOereX fitjXov on dig £7 npeXeiag Kai paOrjtrecog KTyrrjg ovayg. 
A little further on dpx*} is the principle of the discussion, on which 
everything else is based. This is a very common use of the word. 
To pera tovto, i. e. the conclusions drawn from that principle, as 
Euthyphro, p. 12. D. Cratyl. p. 402. D. — epp'eveiv here means 
to abide by and retain your former opinion. Phaedo, 92. A. eyfij 
(lev — Kai tots davpaarcog cog lireiadyv vtt’ avrov Kai vvv 
tppevco a >g ovfievi Xoyip. 

XI. a 'Ek tovtcjv firj aQpei] That is, if this is true, that it is 
torong to injure any one in any manner, see what follows from it. 

b prj TreivavTsg ryv ttoXiv ] That is, aKovrcov ’AOtjvaicov or 
prj atyievTcov ’A Qtjvaicov, as in C. IX. 

c olg oopoXoyjaapev £.] On the construction, see Matth. 
§ 473. 2. 

d el p'sXXovtnv rjpXv evQsvfie —] Since the verb cnrofiifipdcrKeiv 
is generally used of run-away slaves, he adds, in order to soften the 
expression, eW’ on-cog fieX ovopaaai tovto, i. e. or by whatever other 
name we are to call it. Legg. I. p. 633. A. eire pepcov eW’ urra 
ai)Ta KaXeXv xP i( *>v eoriv. 

e to koivov Ttjg 7r6A.£wf] The community of the state. Cicero 
uses the same construction, Verrin. II. 46, 63. commune Siciliae. 
So to koivov Trig ttoXscoq, is said in Protag. p. 319. D. Rep. VII. 
p. 519. E. Lysias, Apol. Manth. p. 158. Accus. Philon. p. 161- 


CRITO. 


171 


ed. Brem. — Observe the accumulation of participles iXOovreg — 
Imaravreg epoivro* This passage seems to have been imitated by 
Cicero in Catil. I. 7. 

f aXXo ti tj rovrip T<p epyy] On this form of interrogation see 
Viger. p. 148. Matth. § 487. 8. 

* to <t'ov pepog~\ The same as, C. XII. icaO’ Berov Svvaaai. 
h ical pfj dvarerpa^Oat] That is, and not lie prostrate, being 
overthrown : for this is the force of the perfect tense. 

‘ ai yivopsvai 3'ikcu] Or ai diKat at diKaaOelaai, means : the 
judgments given or pronounced according to the laws. 

k on ’Hfo'/ctt yap rjpdg r) ttoXic] Respecting on prefixed to a 
speech quoted in the first person, see Matth. § 624. c. Since 
the words are quoted in the first person, the introduction of 
ydp becomes intelligible. For ydiKei Heindorf preferred ddiKel. 
But Socrates does not now speak of injustice in general committed 
by the government upon the citizens, but of the particular injus¬ 
tice in his own condemnation: as is clear from the words, which 
immediately follow. The passage may be thus translated : For the 
state acted unjustly by us, in condemning us, and keeping us in prison , 
The correct view of the passage was taken by Buttmann, who also 
rightly observed that the verb eicpiva is in the aorist. 

1 ri kpovptv ;] That is, r\ ri aXXo epovpev ] Xenoph. Oec. 
III. 3. tL ovv tovtwv tanv airtov rj ori k. t. X. Plat. Gorg. 
p. 480. B. Rep. I. 332. C. More examples are given by Bos. de 
Ellips. p. 27. ed. Schaef. 

XII a ij Kai ravra wf,loXoyijro — diicaZy] Conjectural emenda¬ 
tions have been made on this passage, but without any necessity. —- 
Fischer justly remarks: “ The passage is undoubtedly genuine, if 
we read »/ real ravra, according to the MSS. and the Aldine edition. 
For as epfieveiv t<xZq Sikccig is to abide by the judgments : so there 
cannot be a doubt but that the pronoun ravra refers to the words 
going before : rjdiKSi ydp rjpdq r) iroXtg Kai ovk 6p9oig rfjv diKyp 
tKpiv£‘ in this sense : Whether has this also been agreed on between 
us, namely, that you should accuse the state and its judgments of 
injustice ; or rather has not the agreement been, that you should abide 
by the decisions which the state may make.'* —On the expression 
ufjtsvtiv raig dUaig, see Lucian. T. I. p. 606. ed. Reitz., where 
we find vopoig Eppevovreg. Liban. T. IV. p. 271. ed. Reisk. pevuv 
tv roZg vopoig . Thucyd. p. 330. ed Oucker. Plat. Rep. X. 
p. 619. C. ov tpphvovra roig npoppriQnaiv. 

b ov Trputrov p’iv <T£ !y evvrjGupav —] It is worthy of observa- 


172 


NOTES ON THE 


tion, in this passage, that 7 rputrov is not followed by hrura. But 
the force of that word is in the following words: ’AXXa roig irep i 
ryv tov yEvopkvov rpotpyv te Kai 7 raiSeiav k. t. X. For this 
might also have been written in the form : sTctira ov KaXdg rrpog- 
krarrov 01 Iwi ry rpoQy re Kai 7 raidelg, reraypevoi vopoi, tt a-' 
payy. — 7r aideveiv ; y Kai rovroig pfupei; A little further on 
Buttmann substitutes iXdpfiave for the common reading IXa/ 3e. 
Buttmann maintains that the imperfect indicates not only the act of 
marriage, but also that it was performed according to law ; but this 
assertion cannot, I think, be proved. For since the words : Kai 81 
ypwv eXaj 3 e — Kai tyvTEvae ae, contain the explanation of the pre¬ 
ceding words : ov 7 rputrov psv <re Eyevvyaapev, it appears impossi¬ 
ble to doubt the correctness of eXa( 3 e, which rests on the authority, if 
not of the best, at least of the most numerous MSS. — On the laws 
of the Athenians respecting marriages, see Meursius’s Them. Attic. 
I. 14. II. 6. 

c roXg vopoig roig 7 repi rovg yapovg ] These words are added 
to explain more fully the preceding clause, and do not appear to me 
to be of doubtful authority, although I was formerly of opinion that 
Tolg vopoig arose from a gloss. 

d rpocpyv te Kai Traideiav] Phileb. p. 55. D. ovkovv ypiv to 
piv, oipai, 8ypiovpyiKov sari ryg 7repi ra paOypara emoTypyg, 
to 8i TTEpi 7raideiav Kai TpoQyv ; Xenoph. Mem. III. 5, 10. ryv 
ye Tpotpijv Kai TcaiStiav. 

* y ov KaXCjg k. t. X.] The laws repeat with great emphasis the 
same question which they had previously put, in the words: ’AXXa 
roig TTEpi t. t. y. — EffaidEvOyg ; The passage may be thus trans¬ 
lated : But do you find fault with the laws respecting the rearing and 
education which you have received. Have not those of us (i. e. laws) 
which have been enacted for these purposes enjoined well, §c. The 
common reading y ov k. is incorrect. 

f ev povaiKy Kai yvpvaariKy Trai8EVEiv(\ On the customs 
and laws of the Greeks, and principally of the Athenians, on these 
subjects, consult Aristot. Polit. VIII. 3. Demosthen. c. Ti- 
march. p. 261. Petit, in Legg. Attic, p. 162. and Spanh. in 
Aristoph. Nubb. v. 961. and 969. Protagoras, p. 325. C.—p. 326. 
D. and Isocrat. Paneg. II. p. 195—197. 

s lyevov te Kai s&Tpacpyg Kai l'7raidev9yg'\ So Alcibiad. I. 
p. 122. B. ryg 8e <ryg yevEtrswg Kai rpo<pyg Kai 7raideiag — ovdevi 
peXei. Legg. XI. p. 920. A. oaoi yevetret Kai rpo<palg e8> runal- 
devvrat. 


CRITO. 


173 


h Kai bovXog, avroq re Kai oi ooi it poyovoi ;] Remark this 
mode of opposition. Sophocl. (Ed. Col. v. 452. hrdZiog piv 
> Oibnrovg KaroiKrioai, avrog re TraXbeg O’ aid*. Ibid. v. 864* 
t roiyap oe, Kavrbv Kai y'evog to oov, 9eiov o rrdvra Xevooiov 
f HXtog doiri (3iov roiovrov. See Apolog. Socr. C. XXXIII. 

I note ( d ). 

' Kai ffv ravra avr.'] Most MSS., and among them Bodl., have 
| Kai aoi r. avr., which has been received into the text by Bekk.; 

but I do not think that examples of such an expression as: biKaiov 
i Hoi kart ravra Troielv, will be found. This ov is referred to the 
' ver b olei, when common usage would require as, which would refer 
to the infinitive elvai. It is not difficult to account for this con¬ 
struction. For by the use of ov, the opposition is more emphatic; 
and, besides, the perspicuity of the passage would be injured, if we 
were to write: Kai oe ravra dvr nr. Protagor. p. 316. C. ravr’ 
ovv ijdrj <tv OKorrei, rrorepov 7T£pi avrdv povog o”iei beiv biaXeye- 
ffOai 7rp6g povovg i) per aXXwv : where see Heindorf. Demosthen. 
de Male Gest. Legat. p. 414. 15. ed. Reisk. i)yovpt]v ev rovroig 
TTp&rog avrog irepielvai beiv avriov Kai peyaXoipo^orepog <paiveo - 
Gai. Fritsch. Lectt. Lucian, p. 102 foil. Schaefer Demosth. Appar. 
T. V. p. 626. A few words further on, aoi belongs to i<rov rjv. 

k ovre KaK&g aKovovra avriXeyeiv — ] These words are added 
for the purpose of explaining ravra Kai dvrnroieiv : I mention 
this lest it might be supposed that a clause is wanting. It has been 
already remarked that connectives are not used with sentences which 
are added for the purpose of explanation. 

1 rrpog Sk rrjv tt arpiba dpa — ] Compare Apolog. Socrat. 
C. XXIII. note ( c ).— A little further on, instead of Kai ov ypag 
simply, we have Kai ob bk ypag, in order to add to the force of the 
opposition. The words: o ry aX. r. dp. empeXbpevog, added by 
apposition, are ironical. 

m rijjuurepov eon 7rarpig] There is no need of the article before 
irarpig, which is found in some MSS. For the nouns rrarfjp, 
prjrrjp, Tralg, abeXtyog, yrj, rroXig , dypog, and others, when not 
used in reference to a certain and definite individual, but to a whole 
class, are usually put without the article. See Schaefer. Melett. crit. 
p. 45. p. 62 foil. p. 116. on Sophocl. (Ed. Tyr. v. 630. Butt- 
mann, on Meno. § 7. So, further on : Kai oefteoQai del Kai pdX- 
Xov — Trarpiba xaXeiraivovoav r) irarepa. There is also an ex¬ 
ample in the preceding words : prjrpog re Kai nrarpog. 

a xai ev pei^ovi polpy] ’Ev pei^ovi poipq. eivai is said of that 

Q 3 




174 NOTES ON THE 

which is estimated more highly, which is in greater estimation and 
honour. Compare Valcken. on Herodot. III. 172. avrbv tv ovdt- 
H'iq, peyaXy poipy yyov. 

o icai fj 7 reiOtiv, r\ xoislv] Wolf translates it, aut persuadendo 
contendere oportere . For rreiOtiv is to conciliate by speaking, repre¬ 
senting how the matter stands; to show a better way of proceeding. 
See Apolog. C. XXIV., where didaoKtiv Kai 7rei0tiv are joined. A 
little further on: 7rti0eiv y to d'nccuov iri^VKt. 

t] irtiOeiv avrrjv y to d. 7 rs^.J The infinitive 7T eiOeiv is used 
as if it had been preceded by ttoiuv del, which construction is very 
frequent. Gorg. p. 492. D. tclq pkv kmOvplae $yg ov KoXaar'tov, 
el pkXXei tiq olov del tlvai, kaivra dk avrag <bg peyirrag nXypioaiv 
aXXoOtv yg 7 roOtv tToipa&iv. On which Heindorf remarks: “ We 
are to supply dtlv, the force of which is contained in koXckttsov • * 
Rep. IV. p. 424. B. Xenoph. Mem. I. 5. 5. tpoi pkv doKtl — 
kXtvOspip avdpi tvKTtov tlvai pi) Tv%elv dovXov toiovtov, dovXtv- 
ovTa dk — iKtrevsiv rovg Oeovg k. t. X. Lucian. Hermotim. c. 23. 
T. I. p. 761. rravriov paXiora tTri rovTip (TicovdaffTtov, twv d' 
aXXwv aptXrjTtov, Kai pydk iraTpidog — ttoXvv rroitlaQai Xoyov, 
pyre Traidwv f) yovkwv — tiriKXdaOai, aXXa paXi&ra pkv KaKti- 
vovg rrapaKaXtiv k. t. X. 

XIII. * T(p tlovaiav TCfKoirjKtvai ] Stephan, erroneously con¬ 
jectures to. For, as Fischer remarks, the verb TTpoayoptvoptv is 
connected with the infinitive t%tlvai, and the words Tip tZovaiav 
TreiroiriKtvai signify by what means the laws proclaim that they 
allow any citizen, who chooses, to emigrate, — namely, by means of 
having made an enactment to that effect. Hence it is plain why the 
perfect tense is employed, and why Ttpoayoptvoptv is used, which 
some have translated: we proclaim, we order. 

b krrtidav doKipaaOy Kai Jtfy] This is the reading of all the MSS., 
with one exception; and there is no reason why it should be changed 
into doKipaay, which is approved of by all the editors. For the 
sense is this : After he has become his own master, has arrived at years 
of discretion, and has become acquainted with public affairs ; that is, 
when he has arrived at that age, in which he is most capable of 
judging about matters relating to the commonwealth. This passage 
is illustrated by JEschin. adv. Timarch. p. 26. ed. Bremi. tneidav 
dk kyypa<py Tig tig to Xy%iapxiKov ypappartlov, Kai rovg vopovg 
tidy rovg Trjg 7r oXtiog, Kai ijdy dvvrjTai diaXoyl^eaOai tcl KaXa 
Kai rd prj, ovk tn tTspip diaXeytrai (6 vopoOtTyg). We are now 
to consider what was the doKipaaia elg avdpag. The names of 



CRITO. 


175 


those persons who wished to have the full and perfect rights of 
Athenian citizens, and to attain to public honours, were enrolled in 
the XrjZiapxtKov. Before this could be done, the young men under¬ 
went an examination as to their parentage, whether they were legally 
adopted, and other particulars of a similar kind. See Demosthen. in 
Midiam, c. 43., and the Commentary of Ulpian.— Further on, ob¬ 
serve the accusative Xafiovra, although it is preceded by r<p (3ov- 
Xopkv(p. Sophocl. Electra, v. 470. v^sari /rot Opdaog, advTrvowv 
icXvovaav apriwg bveipdrwv : on which see Brunck. Lysias Epitaph, 
p. 28. a£iov yap ttcloiv avQpWTroig — vpvovvrag. 

c sig cnroiKiav ievai — ptroiKeiv aXXocre 7rot] Ei’c cnroiKiav 
ievai , is to go to an Athenian colony: but puroiKE~iv is to go to a 
place belonging to a foreign power, Greek or Barbarian, as has been 
correctly remarked by Fischer. 

d /cat ort opoXoyrjtjag r; fxtjv ntiOeaQai k. t. \.] The common 
reading for rj pfjv was ypiv , which has been corrected from the best 
MSS. — See Buttmann, § 149. 

e ovte 7rtiQei r)pag~\ Understand, that we act unjustly: as ap¬ 
pears from the words ft prj k aXdg n iroiovpEv. But after saying : 
ovrs TreiOerai ovte ttelQei ypag, there was no need to add : rovrwv 
ovderEpa Trout. However, since by the words: irpoTidevTov 
— SveT v QaTEpa, the principal idea intended to be conveyed 
is in some measure thrown out of view, there is no impropriety in the 
repetition, tovtiov ovbsrepa ttoiel ; especially, since another mem¬ 
ber of the sentence may appear to commence with dXXa e^levtov. 

_A similar negligence of construction has been noticed by Hein- 

dorf, on Theaet. § 73. — The laws are in this passage said 7rpoTi- 
Qevai, those things which they order to be done ; because all edicts 
are publicly set forth, in order that they may be read and judged of 
by all; which is necessary to enable any one to suggest any im¬ 
provement. Therefore the passage may be thus translated: Where¬ 
as we give every one the opportunity of learning and judging of what 
is enacted by us, and do not compel any one by arbitrary severity to do 
what we wish to be done ; and moreover give a choice of two things, 
either to convince us of error, or, if he is unable to do so, to obey us; 
nevertheless, this man does neither of these things. 

XIV. a Tavraig dr] <p. — Hesychius : eve xetrOdc 

lyKaXelaQai, KpaTsleOai, avvExeaOai. The proper signification of 
Ivkxetv is to hold a person bound: hence the middle verb means: 
to give one’s-self up to be bound, to permit one’s-self to be bound , that 
is, to be held bound , and, in the legal sense, to be liable to a charge : 


176 


NOTES ON THE 


from which is derived evoxog, obnoxious, liable to a charge. There¬ 
fore the sense is : We say that you also will be liable to these accusa¬ 
tions, or, will be guilty of these crimes . 

b aXX’ iv rolg paXiora ] Understand IvExoplvoig. 
c ducaiwQ KadartTOiVTo'] Hesychius : KaQaTTTtodaC XoiSopsia- 
Qcu, dveidlZeiv. See Heindorf on Phaedo, p. 132. 

d twv aXX<*iv ’AOtjvaiwv diacpspovrwg] That is, more than the 
other Athenians . See Phaedo, p. 64. E. On the subject here spoken 
of, see Phaedr. p. 230. D. 

e kiri Qtwpiav] That is, to witness the solemn games, namely, the 
Olympian, Nemaean, Isthmian and Pythian, which were attended 
by persons from every part of Greece. 

f f i pi] ttoi trrp.] When he fought at Potidaea and Amphipolis, 
towns of Thrace, and at Delium, a town of Boeotia. See Apolog. 
C. XVII. and Laert. II. 22. 

B ovd* aXXwv — eidevai] That is, {ogre eidlvai avrovg. We 
are informed by Seneca, Laertius, Libanius, and others, that Socra¬ 
tes resisted the inducements of Archelaus, king of Macedonia, and 
other princes, who invited him to settle in their dominions. 

h wpoXoyeig icaO’ r)pdg 7ro\ireve<rdai ] The infinitive, which is 
here put in the present tense, was changed by Stephens, against the 
MSS., into 7ro\iT£v<n(r0ca. In the same manner, C. XIII. near the 
end : Kai oti bpoXoyyaag fj prjv Trtidttrdai ovre TrtiQtTai ovre 
nriiOu. And, further on in this chapter: ipaaKovreg <rt wpoXoyr]- 
Kevai 7roXirevE<r9ai, and icaO * ag rjpiv %vv£9ov iroXiTtvaadai, 
where Stephens likewise corrected to tteigecfQcu and TroXirtvataQai. 
Legg. p. 937. B. lav tyyvrjTrjv aZioxpsojv ij pr)v p'svEiv Kara- 
(TTrjay: where Ast, with Stephens, wrote ptvtiv. Herodot. IX. 
106. irion re KaraXafiovreg Kai opKioiai Ippevuv rt Kai prj anro- 
arycreoOai : where Wesseling, against the MSS., substituted Ippe- 
veiv. Xenophon Cyrop. VI. 2, 39. epoi Trpogayaywv syyvyrag 
y prjv 7ropeveaQai : where Stephens preferred 7ropev<T£(r9ai. Ana- 
bas. II. 3, 27. bpocrai ») pyv 7ropev£(r9ai: where Schneider, after 
Stephens, gave 7rop£V(T£(r9ai. Eurip. Med. v. 750. bpvvpi — 
tppkvEiv, u <tov kXvw : where see Schaefer. It certainly is not 
indifferent whether the future or present tense is used. If the future 
is employed, the speaker indicates an action not yet present, but 
which will take place at some future time, and promises that he will 
perform it at a future time. As in Xenophon. Hellen. II. 4, 30. 
opboavTEg opjcouf ij prjv prj pvt]GiKaKr]<7Eiv, could not be ex¬ 
pressed in any other manner, since not a present, but a future ven- 




CRITO. 


177 


k geance is thought of. But if the present is used, the speaker refers 
to a state of things, not simply in futurity, but now preseut, although 
it may continue longer. When a person says : y /xfjv, kfipivw ; he 
declares by these words that, from the very moment of his giving the 
( oath, he will abide by what he promises, since the circumstances are 
now present which call for its fulfilment. If this is a correct view, 
it must be easy to determine whether the present is to be retained in 
this passage, or the future form substituted. Let us imagine a citizen 
i swearing that he will direct and govern his life, manners, and pur¬ 
suits, according to the laws and ordinances of the state, in which he 
is about to live. Which will be the most correct: fj fiyv o/xoXoyw 
j Kara rovg vopovg 7to\it£v<T£(t6cu ; or i] /xrjv bfxoXoyw Kara rovg 
I vopovg 7 roXireveaQai 1 It appears to me, that the second form of 
I the oath is preferable; since it indicates that from the moment of 
taking it he will obey the laws. It cannot then be wrong to use the 
same law of construction in obliqua oratione, (i. e. in reciting a 
speech in the third person,) as is used in directa oratione, (i. e. in the 
speech as it comes from the speaker.) Therefore, in all the passages 
before quoted, to which many others might be added, I think the 
reading of the MSS. ought to be preserved, as being singularly 
adapted to the meaning. For as to the addition of Kai fir} diroarr}- 
<T£<jQcu, the passage may be easily understood, without changing 
kppkveiv into Ippeveiv. For the sense of the words is : Affirming 
‘ that they both now are willing to abide by their promises, and will 
never violate them at a future time. — The next words : rd re aXXa 
Kai Tcaibag kv avry kTroiyaw, are added as if they were preceded by 
Kai knoXirevov, i. e. and you conducted yourself as a citizen as well 
in other things, as also in this, that fyc. This construction arises from 
the free formation of sentences often employed by the Greeks, who 
paid in such cases more regard to the sense, than to the grammatical 
construction. 

* kKrjv <roi <f>vyrig nprjaaaOai] When the judges gave their first 
votes on his case. For, as we have mentioned in a note on Apolog. 
Socrat. C. XXV. the accuser always fixed the punishment in the 
indictment, if no punishment was already fixed by the laws. This 
was called ripdv, which governs a dative of the person, and a geni¬ 
tive of the punishment. After the pleadings had been gone through, 
and the judges had by the first vote found the accused person guilty, 
he was asked what punishment he thought that he had deserved : 
t'i a^iog e"irj iraQeiv rj airoriaai. This was nprjaaoQai or avn - 
rtpnaaaOai, Apolog. Socr. C. XXVI. and XXVII., or vironpyr 



178 


NOTES ON THE 


ochtQcu, as in Xenophon, Apolog. Soc. C. XXIII. Therefore So* 
crates, on this question being put, might have answered that he had 
deserved exile. — KaXXwTri^eaOai, according to Hesychius, is pro¬ 
perly icoaptiaOai, to adorn, or deck one’s-self: whence KaXXunriarpia, 
a female who adorns other's, a lady’s-maid. But in a metaphorical 
sense it signifies: to be haughty like persons who are proud of their 
dress, to be elated, to swagger, as here. Protagor. p. 333. D. to p'ev 
ovv irpioTov tKaWojTrl^eTo rjpiv o II piorayopag — tTceira pevroi 
%vvex(bpr)(Tev aTroicpiveoQai. Respecting the infinitive nQvdvai, 
for which Ovyaictiv might have been expected, see Apolog. Socrat. 
C. XVII. note (*). 

k A\\o ti ovv av <pa.T ev] The particle av was commonly 
omitted ; but it is by no means improperly inserted in this sentence. 
Aristoph. Pac. v. 137. aXX’ a> peXe av poi gitiujv dncXwv tdei. 
Demosth. p. 1445. 14. ed. Reisk. rt ovv av tirroi rig av irapaiv- 
ug -, Olynth. p. 14. 5. ed. R. rt ovv av Tig eirroi crit ypd<peig ; 
Plato, Phaed. p. 87. B. ti ovv av (pair] 6 Xoyog tn cnuaTtig ; 

1 ilg dr) skucttots <pyg evvop.] The laws and institutes of these 
states are spoken favourably of by Socrates, Republ. VIII, p. 544. 
C. Legg. I. p. 634 foil. Protagor. p. 342. C. D. Alcibiad. I. 
p. 121. In this place drj is equivalent to the Latin scilicet , on which 
use of the word see Valcken. on Herodot. V. 20. — sKacTOTE, as 
often as you speak of them. 

m ovd'e tuiv (3ap(3apucu)v'\ This is tHe correct reading, being 
opposed to ■koXewv 'EXXyvidwv. If fiapfidpwv were read, rdv 
'EXXfjviov ttoXsojv would have been used. — Urjpoi and avarrypoi 
are applied to those who are deficient in any part or member of the 
body, or at least deprived of its use, as is correctly observed by Fischer 
on this passage. 

oi vopoi drjXov orr] These words appeared to Stephens to 
have arisen from a gloss. But Fischer has correctly observed that, 
if they were removed, what follows would lose almost all its force : 
tIvi ydp av 7roXig apeaicoi avev vopwv; Besides drjXov on or, 
as it was commonly written, dyXovon, refers not only to oi vopoi, 
but to ^the whole of the foregoing sentence, as if the passage stood 
thus : orjXov oti ovno diapepovTwg aoi ijpeaicev r) xoXig te Kal oi 
vopoi. 

° hav rjpTv ye 7rei'0y] In these words the laws answer them¬ 
selves. At the close of the sentence we are to understand : dXX’ 
ippevug, being a repetition of the expression, which was employed 
in asking the question. 




CRITO. 


179 


XV. * rjj tovtiov 7roXir£t^] Understand, of the citizens of those 
states. — vTrofiXtyovTai ere. Hesychius : vreofiXereopevog' vreo- 
voCjv, exOpaivojv. The meaning of v7eof5Xkxe<r9ai is to regard 
with suspicion, to suspect, and sometimes to hate, to be an ene¬ 
my of. 

b fiefiaiilnTeig r. £.] That is, You will confirm the judges in their 
opinion that they were right in condemning you : or, you will confirm 
others in the opinion that the judges were right in their decision; as if 
the reading were cigre avrovg dotcelv k. t. X. Euthydem. p. 305. 
D. edv rovrovg elg boZav Karaaryawai, prjbevog doKelv aZ’iovg 
elvai. 

c Kal rwv avbp&v rovg k oapaorarovg] K ocrpioi is said of 
those who observe rov Koirpov, i. e. order and moderation, or, as 
Fischer interprets it, those who diligently direct and regulate their 
life, morals, and pursuits according to the standard of the laws ; mode¬ 
rate, upright. See Perizon. on iElian. V. H. XIV. 7. 

d Kai rovro reoiovvn dpa a£.] Phaedo, p. 65. A. Kal boKsl ye 
7 rov rolg zeoXXolg dv9pu>xoig, <p prjb'ev fibv riov roiovrwv, ovk 
a£iov elvai £rjv. — A little further on we have written : Kal avai- 
ffXVvrrjoeig biaXeyopevog — rivag Xoyovg ; since the structure of- 
the sentence is changed by an interrogation suddenly introduced. 
The former reading was : Kal avaKTxvvrr/creig biaXeyopevog rivag 
Xoyovg, w 2., i) ovgrrep evQade. The interrogative pronoun, rivag, 
is found in the best MSS. 

« aoxypov av <f>ave~i<r9ai ] The particle av with a future in¬ 
finitive is not unusual. See Apol. C. XVII. note (y). To rov 
SooKparovg repay pa, the business, or affair of Socrates, is to be un¬ 
derstood as meaning Socrates himself. So ro repay pa is said of the 
people, Gorg. p. 520. B. — The expression ole<r9ai ye xpV is often 
used in this manner. See C. XVI. edv be elg" Aibov dieobtipyayg, 
ovx'i ereipeXyaovrai; — ole<r9ai ye XP» )• Phaed. p. 68. A. ovk 
aerpevog eioiv avroae ; oieo9ai ye XPV' Protag. p. 325. C. ravra 
S’ dpa ov bidaffKovrai ovd’ ewipeXovvrai redaav ewipeXeiav; 

oiecrbai ye xPV> Gorg. p. 412. B. 

f Uei yap dr) reXelarr] — aKoXaffla'] The Thessalians were then 
infamous, on account of the licentiousness of their mode of living; 
their fraudulence, indecency, wantonness, luxury, and other vices. 
See Athenaeus, IV. 6. p. 137. X. 4. p. 418. XII. 6. p. 527. XIV. 
23. p. 663.—Fischer. 

* (TKevrjv re nva 7T£pi0.] Hesychius and Suidas : oKeviy oroXy. 
Phavorinus: ffKevry o^vroviog, to evbvpa' o9ev Kal VKevdZopat 


180 


NOTES ON THE 


to Ivdvofiat. A garment which covers the whole body appears to 
be understood, as appears from the verb ntpiTiOtaQai. 

h <rx^fta] That is, habit or clothing. Hesychius: axypa' — 
ipariapog. This use of the word has been noticed by Kuster, on 
Suidas, T. I. p. 192. The words are thus connected: tricevrjv re 
rrepiQipevog icai to psraXXd^ag. But the words : rj di<f>0. 

X. ?) aXXa k. r. X. indicate the different kinds of rrjg (TKtvrjg. 

* eroXpycrag ovrco yXfcxpwf] Here roXpav is to endure, not to 
blush at, ovk ai , <rxvj'£<70at. See Jacobs Addit. ad Athenaeum, 
p. 309. 

k ti St pr{\ But if otherwise; but if yon should be troublesome to* 
the Thessalians. See Matthiae Gr. $ 617. Buttmann, § 135. 10. 
Compare Eurip. Alcest. v. 707. el S‘ ypdg ko.ku>q iptig, aicovati 
7 roXXa kov \ptvSrj Kaicd. 

1 virtpxopsvog Srj — rravrag — icat ^ouXtuwv] Schleiermacher- 
considers ri iroitbv introduced in so awkward a manner, and Sov- 
Xc vwv so superfluous, that he regards the latter as a gloss on in rtp- 
Xoptvog, and would read the sentence : vTrtpxoptvog Sy it. avQp, 
fiiuoti icai ri ttoiwv. — Buttmann, disliking the introduction of 
iv QtrraXiq,, towards the end of so long a sentence, and having seen in 
one of the Vindob. MSS., tig QtrraXiav, omits these words after 
cnroStdyp., and thus remodels the whole passage : inrtpxoptvog Si) 
fiabati Ttavrag dvOpwrrovg, ical ti rroiwv tvwxovptvog, elg 
9 tTTaXiav Signtp Ini Stinvov cnroStSypyKwg ; But, to say no¬ 
thing of the objections which might be offered to this correction, it 
does not appear necessary to alter the common reading. For icai 
SovXtvwv is by no means without a distinct signification; it ex¬ 
presses the meaning more forcibly than the preceding inrtpxoptvog. 
For the meaning is : You will lice indeed studying how to insinuate 
yourself into the favour and companionship of others, and even being a 
slave to them. The second reproach, therefore, is much stronger 
than the first, especially when directed against a man, who had so 
utter an aversion to every thing servile. It does not appear neces¬ 
sary to insert icai before ri tcoiojv, as Schleiermacher has done. 
For these words are not closely connected with what goes before, 
although the interrogation only begins here. I have therefore con¬ 
sidered it sufficient to put a shorter stop after SovXtvwv than the 
common full point. The sense of the whole passage is: You will 
therefore live the flatterer, and even the slave, of other men: how else 
employed, pray, than banquetting in Thessaly, as if you had gone to 


CRITO. 


181 


i Thessaly from your oxen country to some feast ? The repetition of 
' Thessaly is not without force. On what follows, compare Axioch. 

p- 124. t'i ravra ; 7ro5 ra 7 rpo< jQev avxvpciTa » Soph, 

t CEd. T. v. 940. w Oswv pavrsvpara, iV lore; Ibid. 946. ra 
! a'epv "iv tficei tov 9soii pavTivpara) Eurip. Supplic. v. 127. to 
ji *Apyog vpiv 7rov ’cttiv ; t) 'Kopnrsi fxaryv ; 

m 'A XXa drj rdv iraidwv svsica /3.] Here aXXd dij, like the 
Latin at enim, may be translated : But perhaps you will say that. 

I It is used for the purpose of refuting an objection by anticipation. 
Republ. X. p. 600. A. aXXd 5?) si [xrj Sypoaiq., idiq riatv yyspuiv 
■rraibsiag avrog %Cbv Xlysrai " Oprjpog yevkvQcu. Protag. p. 338. 

I C. aXXd dr/ ftsXriova yp&v alpyasoQe. Where see Heindorf. 

\ Compare C. VIII. of Crito, near the end. 

“ \va k ai tovto aov dTroXavvaxnv ;] The verb airoXaveiv, 
which is properly said of things good and pleasant, is often employed 
with Attic sipwvsia in a bad sense. Legg. p. 910. B. icat tt d<ra 
ovTwg rj noXig airoXavy rwv dotfiwv rponov Tivd ducaiwg. Lu- 
j cian. Dialog. Deor. X. Sol. roiaura arroXavcovTai toiv A Cog 
ipu)T(t)v. Mercur. 2 ta> 7 ra, w *'HXi£, py n Kaicov anoXavayg twv 
X oyiov. 

° avrov ] That is, At Athens. — Immediately afterwards dpsxpov- 
rai ical rraibsvoovTai are to be taken iradyTiKCjg. Compare Matlh. 
§ 496. note 4. Buttm. § 123. 3. 

p irorspov lav sig 0.] Lest the reader might find a difficulty in 
the want of a conjunction to connect this sentence with the pre- 
! ceding, it may be remarked that sentences placed in strong opposition 
! are often without any particle. Therefore there is no reason for 
reading, with Eusebius, noTspov 8s lav. — On the words si ti 
o(/>eXog, see C. V. note ( m ). 

XVI. * 7 r pb tov diKaiov ] See C. IX. note (*). 
b ovts yap ivQad f] That is, in this life . 
c ravra irparrovri] Which Crito has proposed to you. 
d apsivov slvai] apsivov slvai is constantly used instead of 
dyaOov slvai. Compare Apolog. Socr. C. II., near the end. 
Phaedo, p. 115. A. Gorg. p. 468. B. D. Republ. III. p. 410. D. 
But since the comparative apsivov is frequently used in this manner, 
ovbs diKuioTspov oi/Sl offiivTspov are also added by a kind of at¬ 
traction. In the same manner Phaedo, p. 98. E. 1 he sense is: 
Neither you, nor any of your friends will be, or be considered, hap¬ 
pier, juster, or holier, if you make your escape. 


R 






182 


NOTES ON THE CRITO. 


e aXXa vvv p’tv] That is, But if you do not comply with the 
suggestions of Crito, you will depart, §c. 

XVII. a on iyw Co tew ate.] The Corybantes were priests of the 
Mother of the Gods in Phrygia, and they leaped or danced under the 
influence of the divinity. See Strabo. X. p. 725. Almelov. Whence 
Kopvj3avnav is, to be affected with the disease called tevpvfiavriaa- 
pog, in which the person imagines he hears the sound of flutes in his 
ears: which disease was supposed to come from the Corybantes. 
See Scaliger on Catull. XLII. 8. and Langbaen. on Longin. p. 209. 
Toll. Compare also Ruhnken on Tirn. p. 163. — vxv> f° r ijxog, 
is an Attic word. See Mceris and Thomas M. under the word. 
— fiopfitiv, to buzz, is here said of the voice of the laws resounding 
in his ears. Synesius Epist. 123. tp/3op(3tl pov ralg aicoaXg r/ 
Oavpaari) <rov r&v <ro<putv \6ywv — A little further on t<r6i 

— pdrrjv epelg is used as in Apolog. Socr. C. V. tv pevroi lore, 
7 rdcrav vpiv rqv d\r)9uav tpw. Ibid. C. XVII. ravra yap 
KtXtvti —, tv iart. 

b tav n Xtyyg 7r apd ravra] Phaedr. p. 107. A. ovtcovv iywyt 
t\<o rcapd ravra a\\o rt \tytiv. Phaedo, p. 80. B. txopkv ri 
Trapa ravra aXXo Xsytiv. 


appendix. 






ITAATI2N02 


$ A I A ft N. 


Chap. I. EXEKPATH2. Avtos , co <J>at6a)^, nape- 
yevov* haiKpcLTet. eKeCvr) rfj f)piepa, fj to (j)dpp.aKov enLev 
ev rw beorpLooTqplco, rj aXKov rov rjKOveras ; <E>AIAI2N. 
Avtos, co ’E^e'/c/jares. EX. Tt ovv biq Zvtlv otto 

€L7T€V h 6 aVTjp 77/00 TOV OaVCLTOV ) KCU 7760S eTeXeVTa ; 

rjbeoos yap av aKovcraLpu. Kal yap ovre tcov ttoXltcov 
< t>\i.a(TL(QV c ovbels ndvv tl €7 Tiytopux&i Ta vvv ’A 0rjva- 
£e, ovTe tls £evos cuplKTat yjpovov crvyyov eKeWev, ostls 
hv rjpuv aacfres tl ayyeiAai otos t qv d 7T epl tovtcov, 
7 j\r\v ye brj otl (foappiaKov ttlcov airoOavoi' tcov be 
aXXcov ovbev el(j>pd(eLv. <PAIA. Ovbe Ta nepl Trjs 
bUrjs apa eirvOeade e ov Tponov eyeveTO ; EX. Nat, 
TavTa iuev rjp.lv rjyyetXe tls / Kal e0avpid(opLev ye, otl, 
7raAat yevopLevqs avTrjs, 7roAA<o vcrT€pov g (fratveTaL 
cnTO0av(ov. tl ovv rjv TOVTO, h co (Palbcov; <f>AIA. 
Tvxv rts avr<$, co ’E^e/c/oares, awe fir )• ero^e yap rfj 
npoTepaia Trjs bU-qs rj npvfiva 1 eaTepipievr) k tov t:\olov t 
b els ArjXov ’A 0qvaloL nepinovaLV. 1 EX. T ovto be brj 
tl ecrTLV ; <I>AIA. T ovto Zcttl to ttXolov, cos (paaLv 
? A0qvaloL, ev co Gr)aevs m 7ror€ els KprjTqv tovs bis 
eTTTa eKelvovs c pX €T0 ^V^v Kal eacoae re Kal av- 
tos eaco0r). rco ovv ’A7To'AAcozn ev^avTO, cos Ae'yercu, 
R 3 



186 


PLATO. 


Tore, €L (T(O0€L€V, €KaCTTOV €TOVS 0€(OpCa V CL7TO^€LV n €LS 
AijXov rjv brj ael Kal vvv ert° ef kKeCvov kclt kvLavTov 
t(3 Oeto Trcpirovo-LV. kircLbav ovv ap^obvrcu 9 rrjs 0eco- 
pias, vopos £<tt\v avrois kv ra> Xpovu> tovtco KaOapeveiv 
tt]v ttoX.lv kcll brjpocrLq prjbkva auoKTLVVvvaL, rrplv av 
ets ArjXov re a^LKrjraL to ttXolov kcll ttglXlv bevpo- 
TOVTO 8’ €VLOT€ €V TToXX(p \pOVlp yLyV€TCLL, OTCLV TVXCCHTLV 
avepoL aTToXafiovTcs avrovs. q apxv 8* eart T V S O^co- 
ptas, kircLbav 6 tepei/s rod ' AttoXXoivos ark\j/p ttjv 
TTpvpvav to v ttXolov ' tovto 8* ctvx^v, a>sTT€p Aeyco/ 
Tjj TTpoTepaiq tt}s btKrjs ycyovos. bLa Tama kcll ttoXvs 
Xpovos eyerero r<S ScoKparet kv t(3 beorpcorrjpLQ) 6 
fxera £8 ttjs bLKrjs re kcll tov Oavdrov. 

II. EX. Tt 8e br) tcl 7rept avTov tov OavaTov, oo 
<t>aCba>v ; rt rjv ra Aex0eVra kcll 7 rpaxdkvTa, Kal tCvcs 
oi rrapayevopevoL t&v kTTLTrjbcLorv T<p avbpC ; rj ovk 
zloav oi apxovTcs a TrapcivaL, aXX* kprjpos ereAevra 
cf)LX(ov ; <PAIA. Ovbapu>s, aAAa Traprjcrav tlvcs, kcll 
ttoXXoC ye. b EX. TaCra 8?) ttovtcl TTpo0vprj0rjTL cos 
aa(pk(TTCLTCL rjp.LV a7rayyetAat, et prj rts ctol acrxoXCa 
rvyxdveL ovaa. 4>AIA. ’AAA a oyoXafa ye, kcll Tretpa- 
< TopaL vpTv bLTjyrjaao-OaL • kcll yap to ptpvrjcrOaL 2co- 
KpaTovs Kal avTov Xkyovra Kal aXXov aKovovTa zpoLye 
aet TiCLVTOdv rjbLaTov. EX. ’AAAa prjv f co <t>a(b(ov, Kal 
tov s aKovcropkvovs ye tolovtovs erepous e)(ei?. c aAAa 
7retpco cos av bvvp a/cpi/3ecrrara 8teA0etz> rcavTa . ^>AIA. 
Kat eycoye OavpaaLa erraOov irapayevopevos. oiWe 
yap cos 6av6T(p irapovra pie avbpos kiTLTrjbeCov eAeos 
ets?]er d tvbaLpoov y6p poL e avrjp k(f)aCv€TO, co ’Exe/cpa- 
res, Kat ro8 Tporrov Kal tcov Xoycov, cos a8ecos Kat yei'- 
vaCm f ereAevra, cost’ epioty’ ckclvov TrapLaTaaQaL prjb ’ 
ets^AtSov toVra ai^ei; 0etas ptotpas ? UvaL , aAAa KaKetae 


PHiEDO. 


187 


acpiKopevov ev tt pa^eiv, eiirep ns ircoTrore Kal aXXos. 
bia brj ravra ovbev rravv poi eXeeivov elspe t, <us cikos 
av bo^eiev eivai irapovn 7rev0ei ,h ovre av pbovrj cus ev 
cfyiXocrocpia ppcov ovrcov,' ciosTTep eico0eipev' Kal yap ol 
Xoyoi tolovtol nves k pcrav' aXX* dreyi^s cltottov tC 
poi rra0os iraprjv Kai ns ap0ps Kpacns anb re rrjs pbovijs 
crvyKeKpapevp opov Kal airb rrjs Xvirps, ev0vpovpevco, 
on avrUa eKeivos epeXXe reXevrav. Kal rravres ol 
tt apovres ayjebov n ovrco bieK€ipe0a, ore pev yeXcov- 
res, 1 eviore Se baKpvovres, els 8e ppcov Kal biacjrepov- 
rcos, ’ ArroXXobcopos' olada ydp ttov rov avbpa Kal rov 
Tpoirov avrov. EX. Ileus yap ov; <I>AIA. ’EKeivos 
re roivvv TravraTracriv ovrco s etxe, nal avros eycoye 
ererapayprjv Kal ol aXXoi. EX. V E rvyov be, co <t>al- 
b(ov f rives napayevopevoi; <£AIA. Ovros re bp 6 
’A iroXXobcopos rcov einyjopicov nappv Kal Kpiro(3ovXos m 
Kal 6 7rarpp avrov KpCrcov, Kal en 'Eppoyevps Kal 
’ETTiyevps Kal AlcryCvps Kal ’ Avncr0evps. pv 8e Kal 
Erpaimios 6 IIataz>teus Kal Aleve^evos Kal aXXoi rives 
rcov emyoapicov’ YlXbrcov be, olpai, pcr0evei. n EX. 
zevoi be rives tt aprjcrav ; <I>AIA. Nat, Eippias re ye° 
6 Or](3alos Kal Ke(3ps Kal <Paibcovbps, Kal M eyapo0ev 
EvKXeibps re Kal Tepyfricov. EX. Tt8at; ’ Apicrrn r- 
7 ros Kal KXe6pf3poros rrapeyevovro ; <I>AIA. Ov brjra • 
ev Alyivp yap eXeyovro elvai. EX. *AXXos be ns 
Traprjv ; <I>AIA. E^^bov n olpai rovrovs t rapayevecr- 
0ai. EX. Tt ovv brj; rives, (ftps, perav o t A.oyot; 

III. 4>AIA. ’Eyeu (to i e£ apyrjs 7 ravra Treipacropai 
bipypcra(T0ai. ael yap bp Kal ras np6<j0ev rjpepas 
elco0eipev cpoirav Kal eycb Kal ol aXXoi irapa rov 2co- 
Kparr /, avXXeyopevoi eco0ev els ro biKacrrppiov, ev <o 
Kal p bUp eyevero- TrXpaiov yap pv a rov beapcorpplov. 


188 


PLATO. 


TreptepLevopiev ovv eKdoTore, &09 avoL\6eiy b to becrp.(V- 
Typiov, biaTpif^ovTes per aXXyXoov 0 aveooyeTo yap ov 
7 ip(p' eireiby be avoixOtty, elsfjpev tt apa tov 'EooKpaTy 
Kal TCL TToXXa biyp.epeVOp.eV peT avTov. Kal by Kal 
roVe TTp(DLaLT€pov £vveXeyypev. tt) yap TTpoTtpala 
ypepa eireLby e£yX0opev €K tov becrpcorypiov ecnrepas, 
e7rv0ope0a, otl to ttXolov £k AyXov acjnypevov etrj* 
TiapyyyeiXapev ovv aXXyXots yKeiv bos TrpooiaiTaTa et9 
to elcoBos. Kal yKopev, Kal ypiv e£eX0b)V 6 Bvpaopos, 
osuep eicoBei vTraKoveiv, d eXire 7 Tepipeveiv Kal py TrpoTe- 
pov TTaptevai, &09 av avTos KeXevarp Avovcn y&p, z<py> 
oi evbeKa h(jdKp6,Tr) Kal TrapayyeXXovcnv, ottoos av Tjjbe 
tt) ypepa TeXevTyarj. ov 7 toXvv S ’ ovv \povov e7rt<r- 
X<*>V e T)K€ Kal €Kt\€V(T€V ypaS dsi€Vai. eLSLOVTeS OVV 
KaTeXap(3avopev tov pev SooKpaTy apTi XeXvpevov/ 
T7]v Se aavdiTnrrjv, ytyvcocrKeis y&p, eyovcrav re to 
iraibiov avTov Kal TrapaKaBypevyv. bos ovv e*bev ypa 9 
y aavOiTnrr), avev<pypycre e re Kal Toiavr aTTa elirev, 
ota by eicoBacnv at yvvaiKes , Srt v 12 IZdoKpaTe 9 , varaTov 
by (re TTposepovai vvv oi hriTybeiOL Kal crv tovtov 9 . 
Kat 6 2coKpar?7 9 fiXtyas els tov Kptrcoua, ^12 Kpircov, 
ecfoy, airayayeToo tls TavTyv olKabe. Kat eKeivyv \uev 
airyyov TLves tqov tov KpiTcovos h fioaxrav re Kat kottto - 
pevyv 6 Se SooKpaTy 9 avaKaBi^opevos eirl ttjv kXCv yv 1 
avveKap\J/e re to (TKeXos Kal e^eTpiyJ/e Tjj yeipi, Kal 
Tpi(3o)v apa k *129 cltottov , l ecfoy, ao avbpes, eotKe rt eivai 
tovto, o KaXovcnv oi avOpcoiroL ybv • bos BavpaaCm 
Trecfoi>K€ TTpos to boKovv m evavTCov eivai, to Xvirypov, 
T(p apa pev avTco py eBeXeiv 'napayiyveaBai ra av - 
Opened, eav be tls bicoKy to eTepov Kal Xapcfiavr), 
a-^ebov rt avayKa^ecrQai ael XapL/SAveiv Kal to eTepov, 
cosTrep eK puas Kopvcpys <rvvy\xp.evoo bv’ ovre. KaC p.o t 


PH/EDO. 


189 


boKet, k<pr], el kvevorjorev avra AXaarrros, ] iv0ov av 
<rvv0eivai ) o>s 6 0eos (3ovXopievos avra 8taAAa£at 
TToXep.ovvTa, kireibr] ovk rjbvvaTo, ^vvij\f/ev els Tamov 
avroLS ra? Kopvcftas, Kal bia ravra (p hv to eTepov 
irapayevrjTai eiraKoXovOei vcrrepov Kal to eTepov. cos- 
Trep ovv Kal avT(p /aot eot Kev, kireiby) inro tov beapov n 
r\v kv T(p (TKeXei 7 jpoTepov to aXyeivov, rjKeiv br] 
tyatveTai krraKoXov0ovv to rjbv. 


LXIV. T avTa br] ehrovTos avTov, 6 KpLTcov, Kiev, 
e(j)T] f a> Sco/cpare?* rt 8e rot/rot? rj kpiol e7rtoTeAAet? a rj 
Trepl t&v TTatbcov 7] Tiepl aXXov tov , o rt av col 7tol- 
ovvTe s rjp.eTs kv yapLTL juaAtora 7rotoi/xez/ ; b ''Airep ael 
Xeyar, ecfrr], <o K plrarv, ovbev Kaivorepov * c ort vp&v 
avT&v €7TLpLe\ovpLevoL <i vpcels Kal kpiol Kal tols kpiois* 
/cat vpXv avTois kv yapiTi Tioa]aeTe arr av iroirjTe , Kav 
p*rj vvv 6pLo\oyr]cnriTe' kav be v\uaiv avT&v apieXrjTe, Kal 
piT] 0eXr]T€ atsirep /car t yyr\ Kara ra vvv re elprjpieva Kal 
ra kv r<3 eparpocrdev yjpovu £r\v, ovb ’ kav iroXXa o/xo- 
A oyr/o-rjTe kv r<3 irapovTi Kal crcpobpa, ovbev rrXeov 
rrot^crere/ Tairra p.ev tolvvv Trpo0vpir]0r]cr6pe0a, e(pr], 
ovtco iroieiv' daiTTOopiev be ere TCva Tpoirov ; r/ 07rco? 
av, e(pr], (3ovXr]or0e, k&vitep ye Xafir]Te p,e Kal per} 
kK(f)vyco vpias. TeXaoras be apia r]crv\fj Kal TTpos fjpias 
aTTo(3Xe\j/as ehrev, Ov irel0at, e(j)r], a> avbpes, KpCrcava, 
a>? kyat elpu ovtos 6 '2arKp6.Tr]$, 6 vvvl biaXey6p.evos g 
Kal biaTarratv eKaaTov totv Xeyopievatv, aAA’ oterat pie 
kKelvov elvai, ov oxj/eTai oXtyov vcrTepov veKpov, Kal 
kpooTa br} y 7 r<3? pie 0&7TTr]. h otl 6e eya> Tt&Xai ttoXvv 
Xoyov ireTToCrjpiaL, coj , kireibav 7rtco to <p&pp.aKov, ovKe'rt 





190 


PLATO. 


vpiv napapevcb, aAA’ olyrjaopai clthcdv els paKapcvv br) 
rivas 1 evbaipovias, ravra pot. boKCD avr<2 aAAcos Ae- 
yeiv, k napapvOovpevos apa pev vpas, apa 8’ epavTov. 
eyyvrjaaaOe 1 ovv pe iTpos KpLTCDva, ecjrrj, ttjv evavrtav 
eyyvrjvrj rjv ovtos npos tovs biKaaras rjyyvaTO. ovtos 
pev yap rj prjv napapeveiv' m vpe Is 8e r] pyv prj n apa- 
peveiv eyyvrjaaaOe, eneibav anoOavo d, aXX a olyrjaea- 
dai amovra, Iva K plrorv paov (f)€prj, Kal pi) op&v pov to 
aS>pa rj Kaopevov rj KaropvTTopevov ayavaKTrj vtt ep 
epov, b)s beLva naayovTOS, prjbe A eyrj ev rfj Ta(f)fj, cds 
rj TTpoTiOeraL 2oDKp6.Tr] rj eK(f)epei ri KaropvTT€L. n ev 
yap laOi, q b ’ os, co aptare KpLTCDv , to prj KaXQs 
A eyeiv ov povov els avTo tovto° nXrjppeXes, dAAa Kal 
KaKov ti epnoiel rats \j/vyais. aAAa Oappelv re yprj 
/cat <pavai Tovpov aS>pa OanTecv, Kal OanTeiv ovtcos, 
ottods av (tol (JdlXov 7/ Kat paXiaTa rjyfj vopipov elvai. 

LXV. TaOr elncDV eKelvos pev aviaTaro els OLKrjpa 
rt a cds Xovaopevos, Kal 6 Kptrcor et7rero avT&, rjpas 8’ 
eKeXeve nepipeveiv. nepiepevopev ovv npos rjpas av - 
rovs btaXeyopevot irepl tcdv elprjpevoDV Kal avaaKonovv- 
res, rore 8’ av nepl rrjs £vp(popas 8te£tot>res, oar] rjplv 
yeyovvla elrj, aTeyvcDS rjyovpevoi, tos7rep naTpos aTeprj- 
OevTeSj bia^eiv opcfravol tov eneiTa (3lov. enetbrj 8e 
eXovaaro, Kal rjveyOrj nap amov ra naibia — bvo yap 
avT(p vtets b apiKpol rjaav, els be peyas — Kal at otKetat 
yvvaiKes a(f)LK0VT0, c eKeCvais evavTiov tov Kplrorvos 
btaXeyOets re Kat emcrretAas arra e/3odAero, ras pev 
yvvalKas Kal ra naibia amevai eKeXevaev, avTos be 
r\Ke A Tiap rjpas. Kal rjv rjbrj eyyvs rjXlov bvapS>v. ypo- 
vov yap ttoXvv bieTpL^ev evbov. eXOuv 8’ eKaOe^eTO 
XeXovpevos, Kal ov 7roAA’ arra pera raOra bLeXeyOrj. 
Kal rjKev 6 tcdv evbeKa inrrjpeTrjs Kal oras nap avTov, 





PH2ED0. 


191 


’ 12 , 2 coKpare 9 , ov Karayv(acrop>aL ye crov d oTrep t&v 
aXXonv KCLTayLyv(D(TK(o, otl \xol yaXzTraCvovcri Kal Kara - 
pS>VTcu, eireLbav avTo'is TrapayyeXXco irCveLV to <£ap/xa- 
Kor az)ayKa£oz>ro>z> rcoy apyovroov. e <re 5 ’ eyo) Kal aX- 
Ao )9 eyv coxa ez; rovro> rc 3 xpova yevvaiorarov Kal 
Trpaorarov Kal &pL(TT0V avbpa ovra t&v 7 ro) 7 rore bevpo 
atyiKopivtov, Kal brj Kal vvv ev o! 8 ’ otl ovk e/xol ^aAe- 
iraveLS, yiyvd>(TK€L$ yap tovs alrcovs, aAA’ eKeivoLS. 
vvv ovv, otcrtfa yap a qX0ov ayyeXXoov/ yatpe re Kal 
Tieipu) a>9 pacrTa (frepeLV ra avayKaia. Kal a/xa baKpv- 
aas pL€TaaTpe<p6pL€vo$ airf/eL. Kal 6 ^(VKpaT-r 79 ava- 
/3Xe\j/as TTpos amov, Kat <rv, e(f)7], x a W € > Ka ^ W& 
Tama TTOL^cropLev. Kat a/xa TTpos rjpia 9, *129 aaTet 09 , 
€(f>rj, 6 av0p(O7Tos’ Kal 7 rapa navra /xot roz> xP° vopS 
TTpospeL Kal dteAeyero ezn'ore Kat 77^ avbp&v Ao>oto 9 , Kat 
zn)i; a)9 yevvaCats pie aTrobaKpveL. aAA aye by, 00 
Kpfraw, 7 T€L0a>pLeda amti, Kat eveyKaTco rt 9 ro (f>app.a- 
kov, el TeTpnTTai- el be par/, rpt^aro) 6 av0puTros. h 
Kat 6 Kptro>i>, ’AAA’ ot/xat, e</) 7 y, eyo)ye, go SutKpares, 
Irt ijAtoD etz>at e7rl rot 9 opeat Kat oi) 7 ra) bebvKeva t. Kat 
&pia eyo> 018a Kal aXXovs iravv ox/se 7 jtvovTas, eireibav 
TTapayyeX0fj amoLS, beLnvrio-avTas re Kat TnovTas ev 
puzAa, Kal £vyyevop.evov 9 1 y’ ez>fou 9 < 5 z; &z> tvx^ctlv 
eTTL0vpLOVVT€S. aXXa pLrjbev eireCyov ert yap eyx<opet. 
Kal 6 2o)Kpar779, EtKoro)9 y, €(pr] y o) Kpfowv, eKet- 
rot re raura 'noiovcnv, ovs crv Xeyeis, olovTac yap 
Kepbavelv Tama TTOLrjcravTes, Kal eycoye Tama cIkotus 
ov iroirio-av ovbev yap otpiat Kepba(veLV k oXiyov wre- 
pov 7Tto)Z> &XXo ye rj yeAo>ra ocpXrjaeiv Trap ep.avT<p, 
yXLXopzvos tov Cfiv Kal (peibopievos ovbevos In Zvovtos. 
aAA’ l0l, e(f>r], 7Tt 0ov Kal p.rj aXXm TroCeL. 

LXVI. Kal 6 KpCT(ov aKOvcras ez^evae rw 7rat6i 


192 


PLATO. 


ttKt)(tlov eo-rwrt. Kal 6 ttcus e£eX0b>v Kal av^vov 
Xpovov biarpiy\ras rjKev aycov tov peXXovra btoaew to 
<f>appaKOV, ev kvXlkl (jrepovra rerpippevov. ibbjv 8£ 6 
’SiCOKparrjs tov avOpanrov, Ei€i>, €<£ 77 , o> /3eA.rtore, a av 
yap tovtoov emcrT^pcov , tl XPV voielv ; Ovbev aXXo, 
e<prj, rj 7 novra uepuevai, 'em av aov (3apos b ev rocs 
aKeXecn yevrjTai, erreira Karaitelo-Oar Kal ovrm avro 
7 rot?j(ret. c Kat a/xa &pe£e rrjv KvXiKa rw 2o)Kparei. 
Kal os Xaf3(bv Kal paXa iXem, d w ’Exe/cpare?, ovbev 
Tpeaas ovbe biatyOelpas ovre rod xp&pic tro? ovre tov 
TTposcoTTOv, aXX’ (i)STT€p eiudei, ravprjbov vTroftXexj/as* 
irpbs tov avOptorrov, Tt Xeyeis, e(f>rj, rrepl rovbe tov 
■nboparos 7rpos to aTTOorTreiaaC tlvl ; e^earw, rj ov; 
Tocrovrov, ecpr], co 2c oKpares, rpifiopev, ocrov olopeOa 
perpiov eXvai f mew. M avOavo, 77 8 * os’ aXX * ei>x €- 
aOai ye 7 tov tols Oeois efecrr C re Kal XPV T V V HctoC- 
KYjcnv rrjv evOevbe eKelcre evTvyji yeveaQai’ a br/ Kal 
eyb) evxopai re Kal yevoiro ravrrj. Kat apa ehrb)v 
ravra emoyopevos g Kal paXa evx^pm Kal evKoXm 
ef€ 7 ue. Kal rjp&v 01 ttoXXoI rem pev emeLK&s oloi re 
rprav Karex^iv to /X 77 baKpveiv, h ws 8 e etbopev nlvovTa 
re Kal 7 re 7 rcoKora, ovKerL, aAA’ epov ye j3lq Kal avrov 
ac ttuktI ex<*>pei ra baKpva, &sre eyKaXv\\rapevos 1 a 7 re- 
KXaov epavrov ov yap brj eKelvov ye, aXX a rrjv epavrov 
rvxrjv, o'lov avbpos k eralpov earepTjpevos elrjv. 6 be K pC- 
T(ov en 7 Tporepos epov, eiretbrj ovx olos r tfv Karex^w 
ra baKpva, e^avearr). ’AiroXXobapos be Kal ev r« ep- 
TTpoaOev XP° V< ? ovbev eiravero baKpvoov, Kal brj Kal Tore 
ava^pvx^jo-ajxevos, KXaiov Kal ayavaKT&v ovbeva ovTLva 
ov KareKXaae 1 t&v 7 rapovruiv, nXijv ye avrov 2c oKpa- 
tovs. eKeivos be, Ola, ecfyrj, noiecre,™ a> OavpaaioL. 
eyb) pevroL ovx VKiara tovtov eveKa ras yvvaiKas 


PHiEDO. 


193 


a7T€ir€[A\lfa, Iva fxrj roiavra 7rA77/xjxeAoteir Kal yap 
aKrjKoa, oti kv €V(f)r]p.La yprj rtXevrav. aAA’ rjavyiav 
T€ ayere Kal /caprepetre. Kat Tjjxets aKovaravres fiayvv- 
Orjp.kv re /cat kirkcryopLev rov baKpvtiv. 6 bk 7repieA0coz/, 
€7T€ibri ot fiapvveadai €(f>rj ra a/ceAr;, KareKXlOr] vttt tos* 
ovto) yap e/ce' Xevev 6 avOpcoiros. Kal a/xa e^airro- 
fievos avrov ovtos 6 bovs to <pdppLaKov, n biaMirbiv 
Xpovov 0 €TT€ctk6tt€L tovs 7ro'8as Kal ra (r/ce'Ar/, /c&7retra 
cr(j)6bpa mecras avrov tov iroba ripzro, et alcrOdvoiro • 
6 5’ ov/c £<f)r]. Kal /xera rooro ao0ts ras /cz^/xas' /cat 
CTravLtoV ovt(os p fjpuv iirebeLKwro, on \f/vyoiro re /cat 
TrrjyvvTO. Kal avros Torero q /cal €ltt€V, on, eirnbav 
irpos rfj KapbCa ykvr\rai avrti, rore olyr\a-erai. ijbr] 
ovv ayebov n avrov r\v ra tt tpl to rjrpov* xpvyb^va, 
Kal €KKa\v\{/dfJI,€VOS, £v€K€KaXv7TTO ydp, 3 €L7T€V, o br/ 
reXevraiov £<fi0ky£aro, ’12 Rptnov, k<pr], ru ’Ao7cA»77rt<j> 
o^e^Ao/xez/* aXeKrpvova. aAA’ cnroborz Kal p,rj ap.€\rj- 
crrjT€. ’AAAa ravra, €(pr], earat, 6 KpCroav' aAA* opa, 
et n aAAo Ae'yets. u Taora kpopikvov avrov ovbev ert 
cnrtKpLvaTO, aAA’ oAiyoz> ypovov 8taAt7iw kKLvrjdTj re 
/cat 6 avOpomos k£eKd\v\lf€V avrov, Kal os ra o/x/xara 
eoTryore^ ,v t’Sa/z/ 5e 6 Kpfrcop fweAa/3e ro 0 T 0 jxa w re 
/cat roi/s o(/)0aA/xovs. 

LXVII. ^Hde rj reAei/rrj, co ’Ex^/cpares, rot; erat- 
pov rjpuv kykvtro, avbpos, a>s ^jtxets <£atp.ez> az>, r<Sz/ rore 
<5v €TT€Lpd0r]pi€V a apCcrrov Kal aAAcos (f)povip.(ordrov Kal 
biKaiordrov. 


s 



NOTES ON THE PH^DO. 


Chap. I. a Avtoq S) Qalduv, 7r.] This was Phaedo the Elean, so 
called from his birth-place Elis, a city of Elis, in Peloponnesus. 
He was the intimate friend of Socrates and Plato, whence he is 
called by Cicer. de N. D. I. 33. and by Socrat. Synes. p. 23. 6 «I>cu- 
8(ov 6 tov II\a Ttovog. He afterwards became the founder of the 
Elean sect, and wrote many dialogues, none of which are extant. 
See Diog. Laert. II. 105. Gellius II. 18. Hesychius Milesius 
irepi aoQ&v, p. 39 foil. Meurs. Suidas, in toaiduv. Plato affixed 
his name to this dialogue, because he introduces him relating to 
Echecrates the discourse of Socrates on the immortality of the soul, 
which he delivered before drinking the hemlock. — Echecrates, as 
appears from what follows, was a Phliasian, so called from Phlius, a 
town of Sicyonia. Echecrates the Phliasian is mentioned among the 
Pythagoreans by Diog. Laert. VIII. 46. and Iamblich. in the Life of 
Pythagor. I. 35. This appears to be the same person as is here 
represented conversing with Phaedo. The connection between the v 
Pythagoreans and the town of Phlius, appears from Pausanias, 
II. 14., where we read that Hippasus the Phliasian, great-grand¬ 
father of Pythagoras, removed from his native place to Samos* 
Compare Diog. Laert. VIII. 1., and the commentators on the 
passage. 

b Tc ovv dr] Iotiv arra e.] So C. II. ri r\v ra Xtx^vra teat 
irpaxQevra. Gorg. p. 508. C. (rKvnTtov, ri ra ovpfiaivovTa; 
Euthyphro, p. 15. A. a\\d ri drj 7ror’ av elij ravra ; In a 
similar manner Terence, Hecyr. I. 2, 22. Sed quid hoc negoti est 
modo qu<e narravit mihi Bacchis! 

« ovre tuiv tto\itu)V This is a remarkable colloca¬ 

tion. The usual construction would be rwv $\ia<ri(ov i toXitujv or 



196 


NOTES ON THE 


twv itoXitwv twv $Xiaalwv. Therefore some commentators 
thought that the word &Xia<riwv ought to be removed as super¬ 
fluous ; and others, that the article twv ought to be inserted 
after 7roXirwv, which reading is found in one of I. Bekker’s 
MSS. But since this reading greatly weakens the sentence, and 
<bXiaaiwv is not omitted in a single MS., it seems proper to resort to 
another explanation. It appears to me that proper names, being in 
themselves sufficiently definite, and forming only a single notion with 
their substantives, do not require the article. Apolog. Socrat. 
C. XX. /cat tTv^tv rjpwv r/ <pvXrj ’A VTiox'ig 7 rpvravevovcra, where 
no MS. has'the article. In Meno, init. ical ovx rjKiara ot tov gov 
iraipov ' ApiGTimrov TroXlrai AapiGaaloi. — The verb tTrixupia- 
%eiv, to sojourn, is joined with ’AQrjvaZe, to Athens; since the 
Greeks frequently join verbs of rest to words signifying motion to a 
place; so as to unite two sentences in a single clause. Therefore 
the sense is this : for none of the Phliasian citizens now goes to 
Athens and sojourns there. Xenoph. A nab. I. 2, 2. Trapr^Gav tig 
SapdeiQ, i. e. went to Sardis, and were there. Stephens therefore 
is wrong in interpreting kirix^pid^tiv by the word “ ventitare” go 
frequently. 

d ogrig av t)p~iv — olog r »/r] The sense being that no one 
was able to give us any certain information on that subject, Hein- 
dorf appears to have been correct in reading olog r f)V. Reisi- 
gius commentat. de av particula, p. 113., considered ogrig av 
— f/v less elegant on account of the preceding perfect, afiicrai. 
This, however, may be thus explained : ovre rig tan twv £e- 
vwv twv tKtiOtv aipiKoptvwv, ogrig — olog r r)v. In the same 
manner, Euripid. Medea, v. 1306. ovic tanv rjng tout av 'EX- 
\rivig yvvrj irXr] noff. The words immediately following seem 
to confirm this construction : irXrjv ye dr/ on y>uppaKov ttiwv 
cnroQavoi. 

e Ovdk ra 7rcpi rrjg dhcrjg apa Itt.] Instead of ra rrtpi 
tt)v dbcrjv, because, as Fischer has rightly observed, irtpi with 
a genitive case is used, on account of the verb iwvOtadt. See 
note ( b ) on Apolog. Socrat. C. XX. Compare Matthias, § 595. 
5. a. b. 

f ravra p'tv rjplv ijyytiXk rtf] p'tv is used without de following, 
because the idea, which would be contained in the corresponding 
clause of the sentence, is already expressed by the preceding words. 
See Crito, C. I. note (q), on the words: aXXa tioKtl pev pot 
ijZtiv. 


PHiEDO. 197 

* 7 ro\\<p vortpov] Thirty days afterwards. This also appears 
from Xenoph. Mem. IV. 8, 2. 

h ri ovv rjv tovto ] That is, why was this so? 

* tj xpvpva tor. r. xXoiov — xepxovoi] See Crito, C. I. 

k t<JTsp,pevrf\ That is, ornamented with laurel, which was sacred 
to Apollo. 

1 xkp.xov<ri\ Send with solemnity. The word is peculiarly ap¬ 
plied to this ceremony. See Spanh. on Callimach. Hymn to Del. 
v. 279. 

m iv $ Q)]<revg —] Minos, King of Crete, in order to avenge 
the death of his son Androgeus, (see Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, 
p. 6. Pausan. 1. 27. at the end,) is said to have besieged Athens, 
and to have at length consented to depart, on condition that every 
ninth year the Athenians should send to Crete, instead of tribute, 
seven virgins, and as many youths, (rjiOkovg hrra ical xapQkvovg 
rotravrag, Plutarch. xapOkvovg exra icai xaidag iaovg, Pausan.) 
to be devoured by the Minotaur, in the Labyrinth. These are, ot 
dig ixrd sksIvoi. Theseus, being among the number of victims at 
the third period of tribute, killed the Minotaur, and returned safe 
with his companions, that is, /cat e<Toxrk re /cat avroc eawQr]. See 
Plutarch’s Life of Theseus, p. 6 foil. Pausan. I. 27. p. 67. Meur- 
sius Thes. 16. Compare Catullus Epithal. Pelei et Thetid. v. 76. 
Virgil JEn. VI. 20. Ovid Metamorph. VIII. 170. 

n Qewplav axaZeiv] Thom. Mag. p. 446. says that Qewpia is 
r) 9v<ria, which agrees with the scholiast on this passage. The 
word indicates both the embassy itself, and its solemn accompani¬ 
ments, as may be collected from Plutarch Nic. p. 525. A., where 
Nicias is said, dyetv rr\v Oewpiav, when he is preparing the Chorus, 
providing victims, and attending to the other preparations of festivals. 
Compare Valcken. on Ammon, p. 92. — These Af]\ia, which were 
celebrated annually, are not to be confounded with those festivals 
which are mentioned by Thucyd. III. 104., and which took place 
every fifth year, to commemorate the purification of the Island of 
Delos by Pisistratus. 

0 del Kai vvv crt] This custom was continued to the times of 
Demetrius Phalerius, according to Plutarch, Theseus, p. 10. C. 

p 'E xeiddv ovv dpKojvrcu —] That is, after the stern of the 
vessel had been ornamented with the laurel crown, as Phaado himself 
informs us. A little further on, the common reading, KaOapieveiv, 
is erroneous ; since that verb, if used at all, which is very doubtful, 
is derived from icaOdpiog, cleanly; and can therefore signify no- 

s 3 


198 


NOTES ON THE 


thing else than to be cleanly; which sense is quite inappropriate in 
this passage. Therefore the better MSS. are correct in giving 
KaBapeveiv, i. e. to be pure, and, not to be polluted by punishments, 
which is approved of by all the more recent commentators. The 
addition of ryv ttoXiv, is to indicate that this law refers to the state 
in general, and not merely to the citizens individually. 

q avrovQ ] That is, rovg rrXe,ovrag, which is implied in the 
preceding word, 7 rXoXov. Homer Odyss. a'. 930. 1 cat 1 cev rovr 
eBeXoipi, Aiog ye didovrog, apeaBai, where rovro means (3aaiXsv- 
tiv, which is implied in the noun (3aaiXevg. Aristoph. Plut. 502. 
7 roXXol ttXqvtovcti — adiKOjg avra avXXeyovai ; where with avra 
we must supply xpvP aTa from the preceding 7r Xovrovai. 

T wgirtp Xsyw] This expression is frequently used respecting any 
thing already mentioned. We say : As 1 said before. See Apology, 
C. V. oirtp Xeyui. 

II. a oi dpxovrkg —] That is, ot evdeica. See Apolog. Socr. 
C. XXVII. note (s). At the beginning of C. XXXI. of the Apo¬ 
logy, they are also called 01 apxovreg. 

b rtvlg Kal 7roXXoi yc] Xenoph. Hellen. I. 5, 22. icai nvag 
arreKTSivav ov 7 roXXovg. Plat. Gorg. p. 455. C. <»»£ eyw nvag 
axeSov Kal avxvovg aiaBdvopai. In such sentences, Kal adds 
force to the following clause. See Apolog. Socrat. C. IX. note ( d ). 
The sense therefore is : some, nay many, were present. 

c roiovrovg erepovg t%£i£] That is, But those tcho are going to 
hear you hang also the same feeling. 

d Tcapovra pe — eigye t] The verbs tigievai and eigipx^Bai, 
like the Latin subire, are used of hope, joy, sorrow, pity, &c., taking 
possession of the mind. Eurip. Med. 931. eigyXBe p’ oiktoq. 
Iphig. Aul. 491. p eXeog tlgrjXBe. A little further on, a different 
construction is used : ovdev iravv poi eXeeivov eigyei , on which see 
Matth. $ 401. C. 

e evdaipwv yap poi~\ Compare with this passage, Crito, C. I. 
note (s) on the words, wg ybeojg KaBevbeig. 

f y evvaiwg~\ With intrepidity. Plutarch Cimon, C. XIII. 
vnoaravruiv be rwv Tlepaoiv Kal deZapkv cjv ovk ayevvdg t 
Kparepa paxp aweary. — The verb irapiaraaBai is often used in 
speaking of thoughts suggested by the circumstances in which a 
person may be placed. See, on this subject, Hemsterh. on Lucian. 
Contempl. § 13. Dorvill, Charit. p. 433. ed. Lips. Taylor, on 
Lysias, p. 83. ed. Reisk. = p. 42. edit, pr., who has collected 


PHiEDO. 199 

several passages in which neither So£a, nor Trpaypa, nor any other 
word of the kind, is added. 

g avtv Otiag poipag ] Without the design and will of the gods in 
his favour. For the words are followed by aXXa KaiceZas dip. tv 
vpdgeiv. Plutarch. An Pravitas Sufficiat ad Infelicitatem, p. 499. 
B. cnro9vf](TicovTa St avrov ('Ewtcpdry) ipaKapi^ov ol Zwvrtg wg 
ovS* iv"AiSov Qtiag avtv poipag taoptvov. 

h wg tiKog civ SoZtiev tivai tt. 7r.] Heindorf was wrong in re¬ 
ferring rrapovTi to poi. For the participle involves an indefinite 
person, which makes the sentence general. For the same reason, 
r<p -rrtvQti is not used, which Heindorf conjectured to be the true 
reading. The meaning is : as would appear natural to any one pre¬ 
sent on a sad and mournful occasion. The dative irapovn depends 
on tiKog, as in Eurip. Hippolyt. 1433. dvQpwiroiin St — tiicog 
e^apapraveiv. 

' wg tv <p. rip. ovro»v] That is: as when we were discussing philo¬ 
sophical subjects, according to our custom. Men. p. 91. E. TtTTapd- 
Kovra try tv ry re^vy bvra. Sophocl. (Ed. T. 570. tot ovv b 
pavrig yv kv ry Tt\vy ; was the soothsayer then exercising his art ? 
Xenoph. Cyrop. IV. 3, 23. oi ptv Sy ev rovroig roig Xoyoig yoav. 
Maxim. Tyr. p. 396. T. I. ed. Lips, rovg St tv ipiXoooipiq. icai 
tcclvv av Tig pspxpairo. 

k toiovtoi Tivtg ] That is : belonged to some topics of philosophy. 
In the same manner, Phaedo, p. 80. C. tv roiavry wpq,. 

1 ovtw SitKtiptOa, ort ptv ytXwvrtg k. t. X.] In this sentence 
the participle, agreeing in number and person with the verb, is added 
to explain the word ovrwg. Compare Sophocl. (Ed. Tyr. 10. tipi 
T porrip KaOsarart ; SeiaavTtg y <7Ttp%avrtg: Xenoph. Anab. IV. 

I, 4. ryv St — tpfioXyv wSt 7roiovvrai, dpa ptv XaQtZv Trtipw- 
ptvoi, dpa St tpQdaai. Gorg. p. 478. A. p. 513. E. Phileb. 
p. 20. A. Rep. VIII. p. 556. A. IX. p. 583. C. Sophocl. Phi- 
loctet. 164. ravryv yap t^tiv (3ioTtjg avrov Xoyog tori <pvaiv, 
6tjpo(3oXovvTa irryvoZg io~ig arvytpbv arvytpwg, ovSs tiv avTip 
7 raiwva Kaxwv t7nvwpdv. — On the words ore ptv — tvlort Se, 
see Hermann on Viger. p. 792. — Apollodorus was an attached 
friend and eager disciple of Socrates, trciQvpyTyg ioxvpwg avrov, as 
is said by the author of the Apolog. Xenoph. § 28. Memorab. III. 

II. 17. He was of a fervid temperament, prone to sadness, and 
having his mind always fixed on serious concerns. At length he 
became still more gloomy, and even lost the power of preserving a 


200 


NOTES ON THE 


manly steadiness and fortitude. Therefore he received the surname 
tov fiaviKov . See Sympos. p. 173. D. On the occasion of the 
death of Socrates, he not only wept much, but loudly wailed and 
cried out. See C. LXVI. It is related by iElian, V. H. 1. 16., 
that he brought to the prison a tunic and cloak, to array Socrates 
for death. 

m teal KpiTofiovXog —] Crito, of whom an account is given in 
the notes on that dialogue, is said to have had four sons, Critobulus, 
Hermogenes, Epigenes, Ctesippus. See Laert. II. 121. But the 
Hermogenes here mentioned appears to have been the son of Hippo- 
nicus, and brother of Callias. Respecting him, see Heindorf on 
Cratyl. § 3.', and the remarks of Schneider on Xenoph. Memor. IV. 
8, 4. on Sympos. I. 3. Compare also Proclus, Schol. on Cratyl. 
p. 10. ed. Lips. Neither is Epigenes here to be understood as Crito’s 
son, as there is no doubt of his being the same person as is mentioned 
in Apolog. Socrat. C. XXII. and Xenoph. Mem. III. 12, 2., and 
whose father was Antiphon the Cephisian. — Respecting AEschines, 
the disciple of Socrates, see Diogen. Laert. II. 60—64. — Antis- 
thenes is well known as a distinguished imitator of Socrates’ fortitude 
and contempt of pleasure, and as the Founder of the sect of Cynics. 
Respecting him, see Laert. VI. 1—19. ^Elian, V. H. IX. 35. 
and elsewhere.— Ctesippus the Paeanian, i. e. belonging Uaiaviq. 
Srjfiip rrjg TlavSiovidog (pvXrjg , is known from Euthydem. p. 273. 
A. and Lysid. p. 206. B. foil. — Menexenus is distinguished by the 
book bearing his name, written, as it appears, by Plato. He was of 
noble extraction, (see Lysid. p. 207. C.) and in his mature age 
applied himself to the study of philosophy, and was a follower of 
Ctesippus, and other sophists. See Lysid. p. 206. This accounts 
for Ctesippus and Menexenus being here mentioned together. 

n nXarwv 8s, oT/iai, r/aQsvsi] The conjecture of Forster is not 
improbable, that by these words Plato meant to signify the sorrow 
which overwhelmed him at the approaching death of his illustrious 
master. The circumstance of Xenophon’s name not being mentioned 
here, is enumerated by Athenaeus, XI. 15., among the arguments to 
prove that Plato and Xenophon were not on good terms. There is a 
learned discussion on this point by A. Boeckh. in commentat. aca- 
dem. De simultate, quae Platoni cum Xenophonte intercessisse 
fertur. Berol. a. 1821. It has been rightly observed by Fischer 
that Xenophon could not with propriety have been mentioned here, 
since he had gone to Asia the year before the death of Socrates, and 


PHiEDO. 


201 


was still there. — For yv 8k icai KTrjannrog, Heindorf preferred 
xaprjv 8k Kai Kr., but without necessity. For it is usual with the 
Greeks, when verbs compounded with prepositions are to be re¬ 
peated, to omit either verb or preposition in the repetition. The 
omission of the verb is of very frequent occurrence in the Poets and 
Herodotus. There is an example of the omission of the preposition in 
Euripid. Bacch. 1062. Xaflojv yap eXaTrjg ovpaviov atcpov icXaSov 
Karriytv , r/yev, yyev tig fieXav 7re8ov ; and many similar passages 
have been collected by Elmsley on Eurip. Medea, v. 1219. Nearly 
similar is Eurip. Orest. 1100. Pyl. 7Ti0ov viv , avdfieivov 8k tpa~ 
ayavov TOfiag . Orest, /uvu, tov k\9pov el ti rt/iwp^rro/tat. 
Plat. Phaedr. p. 248. A. 

0 'St/x/xiag re ye —] Simmias and Cebes, the Thebans, are said 
to have been disciples of Philolaus, a celebrated Pythagorean, who is 
mentioned by Plato further on in this dialogue, as well as in many 
other places. They were familiar associates of Socrates, (see Crito, 
C. IV.) It is therefore evident why Plato introduces them in a dis¬ 
cussion with Socrates on the immortality of the soul. Compare 
Diogen. Laert. II. 124. 125. — Phaedo appears to have been a 
Theban, not a Cyrenean. See Ruhnken. on Xenoph. Mem. I. 2, 
48. — Euclides was the founder of the School of the Megareans, also 
called Eristici and Dialectici. See Laert. II. 106—110. He relates 
to Terpsion, of whom no particulars have been handed down, the 
conversation of Socrates with Theaetetus, in the dialogue of Plato, 
which is known by the name of the latter. — Aristippus, the founder 
of the Cyrenaic sect, is too well known to require any mention here. 
The name of Cleombrotus the Ambraciot, is also well known. It is 
said that, on reading this dialogue, he threw himself into the sea ; 
on which subject there is extant an elegant epigram of Callimachus, 
n. 24., which is also mentioned by Cicero, Tuscul. I. 34. For, even 
from what follows, it may correctly be doubted whether another Cle¬ 
ombrotus is referred to in this passage. For the suspicion of some 
antient writers seems not groundless, that a reflection is here in¬ 
tended to be cast on Aristippus and Cleombrotus, for being so for¬ 
getful of Socrates through self-indulgence and luxury, as not to be 
present on this occasion; although the island of ^Egina was only 
about 200 stadia from Athens, to which city they might easily have 
crossed over. See Diogen. Laert. II. 65. III. 36. Athenams, XII. 
p. 544. D. Demetrius Rhetor, de Elocut. $ 306. Compare Muel¬ 
ler’s iEginetica. p. 186. 


202 


NOTES ON THE 


III. » TrXrjtriov ydp f/v —] The prison was near the market¬ 
place, where the Court of the Heliastae was held. Compare Plat. 
Legg. X. p. 908. A. - 

b ewg avoixOtirj ] On this optative, which indicates a thing 
frequently repeated, see Matth. $ 521. Buttm. § 126. 14. In the 
same manner, a little further on : s7reidfj 8k dvoixOtiij: every time, 
as soon as it was opened: which words Fischer misunderstood. 

c diarp'ifiovreg per aXX^Xow] That is, SiaXsyopsvoi Trpog 
yjpdg avTovg , as he says in C. LXV. — On the word avsyyero, 
see Scholiast on Lucian ad Soloec. T. II. p. 54. to avetpye fiovXov- 
rai fir) XapftdvsaQai kiri TraQtjTiKijg SiaQkaeojg' a XX* ovk aKpifiwg 
rovro. xPV Ta 1 ydp psrd ical aXXwv 7roXXdv 6 UXarcov rra- 
QrjriKwg Iv $ai5u)vi, dvtipytTO, Xiywv, r/ Ovpa ov 7Tdvv rrpwt, 
whence Fischer wrote, ov rrdvv 7rpwt, against all the MSS., and 
without the sense requiring it. For the words ov irp(p are to be pro¬ 
nounced emphatically. — On the form of this imperfect, see Matth. 
§ 168. — On the form 7rpwiair£pov, Thom. Mag. rrpunrepov Kai 
Trpwtrarov aptyorspa yap QovKvSibyg '— Kpeirru) yap ravra 
tov irpmairtpov Kai iTpoSiairarov. But this opiuion is success¬ 
fully controverted by Ruhnken on Timaeus. Glossar. p. 227. Com¬ 
pare Buttmann, Ausfiihr. Griech. Grammatik, T. I. p. 264. 

d ogwep eiutOei viraKovuv ] On the signification and use of the 
verb vTraKovuv , see Crito, C. I. note ( c ).— Immediately after¬ 
wards, instead of the common reading, kmpivuv, we have restored 
irspipkvuv from the best MSS. The meaning of both words has 
been examined by Bekker, Lectionn. Philostratt. p. 89., and is thus 
explained, by Fr. A. Wolf, on this passage : “ kmpkvuv is to wait, 
to await patiently the result of any thing; rrspipevuv is generally 
to stay waiting for a person, to await the arrival of a person. Hence 
the latter is commonly used absolutely, whereas the former is much 
more frequently joined with twg av.” I am therefore surprised that 


this commentator approved of kmpkvuv, and rejected rrepipkvuv, 
which seems to be used here with singular propriety. Further on, 
C. LXV. rjpag 8’ eksX eve rrspipkvuv. rrepiepivopev ovv. A 
little before : 7 rspispivopsv ovv — ewg avoixOeir] rb bsapwTrjpiov. 
Sympos. in. ov irtpipeveig ; Kayw kmarag rrepiipuva. Rep. I. 
at the beginning, UkXevae — tov rraTba tt epipelvai e KeXevaai. 
Xenoph. Cyropaed. IV. 2, 9. Kai Tovg 'YpKaviovg irepipkvuv 
sKeXevas, t va apa totev. Ibid. VII. 5, 39. dv8peg <piXoi, 7 repi- 
pkv£T£, eo>g tov oxXov biwawpeQa, in which passage remark the 
omission of av. 



PHiEDO. 


203 


• ov 7 roXvv — xpov°v Ittktxiov'] That is, he returned not long 
afterwards. Charmid. p. 160. E. Kai og STnax^v — t<pt]. Alci- 
biad. II. p. 142. D. Phaedo, p. 95. E. <tv%vov xpbvov iiriox^v. 
Legg. VI. p. 751. B. <r fUKpbv kTTHTxovrsg. Eschines adv. Ctesi- 
phont. § 10. in Lys. and Esch. Or. Sel. ed. Bremi. 6 be avrbg 
avrjp fUKpov e7ri(rxwv tKeioiv £k tov biKaOTrjpiov. A little further 
on, for UeXevaev several MSS., and amongst them Bodl., have 
eKeXevev. But there is nothing objectionable in this union of 
the aorist and the imperfect. Further on, p. 61. A. e 7 reibrf i) re 
dticr) lyivero Kai rj tov Oeov toprri buKwXvt fie cnro9vr]<JK(iv, 
ebo%e xpv vai .*• t. X. Ibid. p. 61. C. at the end. Parmenid. 
p. 127. A. aveyvwpiae re fie Ik rrjg it porepag S7ribtjfiiag Kai 
ijcnraZero, Kai —to (lev irpwTov wkvsi ,— erreira fievroi birfyuTO. 
Phaedr. p. 228. B. ibwv fiev iovra rjadr], oti e%oi tov avyKopv - 
flavTiwvTa, Kai irpodytiv eKeXeve. Different tenses are with pro¬ 
priety joined together, when two or more actions are to be regarded 
in a different manner, and separated in thought from one another. 

f eigiovreg ovv KareX. — apn XeXvpevov] That is, at the very 
moment when we were entering. The common reading, eigeXOovreg, 
when we had entered, is less adapted to the sense of the passage. 

6 avev<prffirf<Te] Cried out with weeping and wailing, according to 
Valer. Maxim. VII. 2. This is one of those words wherein we trace 
the Attic delicacy, which applies to sad and disastrous things words 
properly applicable only to what is agreeable; which the grammari¬ 
ans call Kaf dvTitppaaiv. For evQrfpeZv and avev^tj/ieTv are pro¬ 
perly said of words and expressions well-omened and fortunate. But 
(/car* avTicppaaiv,) they also signify to lament, to cry out, to wail. 
Hesychius : dvev^rjfirfaec avoifiwZei, Kara avTi<ppa<nv 2 o<J>OKXrjg 
T paxiviaig, where see the commentators. He also says: ev<prf- 
fiovar (TTevovai, KXaiovai. See Sophocl. Trachin. 783. .Elian. 
V. H. XIV. 1. and the observations on the word tixprjfiog used for 
bvg<prffiog, made by Stanley on Eschyl. Agamemn. 1227. Yet 
Hermann, on Sophocl. Trachin., in the place before quoted, does not 
acknowledge any dvricppaaig in the word avtvtprffiiiv ; which he 
explains to mean, to cry out evQrjfiei ; that is, to cry out, “ let ill- 
omened words he refrained from.” 

h twv tov K pirwvog] Of the slaves of Crito. For noble and 
rich Athenians seldom went abroad alone, but were generally ac¬ 
companied by several attendants. See Meno, p. 82. B. dXXa fioi 
irpogKaXeaov twv tcoXXwv clkoXovQwv tovtwvi twv aavrov iva, 
ovriva fiovXei. 


204 


NOTES ON THE 


* avatcaO. ini ri\v k\.] That is, raising himself on the bed. For 
Socrates, who had been freed from his chains at the first dawn, was; 
not yet risen from his bed; he now sits up in the bed. A little after¬ 
wards, icaOrjice ra <tksXt) awo rrjg KXivrjg Kai KaBt^optvog ovtwq 
fjdr] ra \onrd bitXsytTO. The common reading, tig Trjv KXivyv, is 
bad, since igtirBai and KaBi^tiv tig ti mean to go and sit down- 
somewhere, as is clearly shown by Valckenar, on Herodot. VIII. 71. 

k rpifiwv dfid] While rubbing. Herodot. 1. 179. opvoirovTtg^ 
a pa rr\v rivppov ircXivBtvov. Xenoph. Anab. III. 3. 7. iptvyov- | 
rsg dpa tTiTpwtTKov. Repub]. VII. p. 521. C. rode tvvow Xtywv j 
a pa. 

* cLTOirov —] Thom. Mag. arorrov ov povov to aXoyov, j 
aXXa Kai to Bavpaorov Kai tt apabo^ov. HXdrwv tv $aibwvi. 
See Crito, C. II. note ( f ). 

m wg Bavpaoiwg rrtipVKS 7rpog r. £.] How wonderful is the re- j 
lotion between pleasure and pain in this, that they will not be present I 
with a man at once, &$c. For Tip, with an infinitive, is in this that, 
or because that, as in Rep. V. p. 471. D. II. p. 361. C. IV. 
p. 429. C. 

" wgirtp ovv Kai avrip poi toiKtv, k7Ttidrj vi to t. £.] The j 
colon, commonly put after ioiKtv, is erroneous, as is well remarked i 
by Heindorf, Sophist, p. 306. For ioiKt poi is never used instead 
of ipaivtTai poi, boKti poi. Even after these words: avrip poi 
ioiKtv, ipaivtTai is added by a kind of negligence in the construc¬ 
tion. Sophist, p. 225. D. Sokw prjv r. y. d. — KaXtZaBai Kara 
yvwpyv rr\v tprjv ov% trtpov aboXtaxwov. Laches, p. 192. C. i 
tovto Toivvv ipoiyt ipaivtTai, on ov tt dad yt, wg tyippai, \ 
Kaprepia dvbpia aoi ipaivtTai. Phileb. p. 32. C. olpai — Kara | 
yt ti)v tprjv doZav ipipavtg tataBai. Lys. p. 221. E., where after j 
wg ioiKt we find wg ipaivtTai. Theocr. VII. 30. Kairoi, Kar ipov \ 
voov, iaotpapiabtv iXrropai. Aristoph. Plut. v. 827. brjXov on 
twv xpyvTwv Tig , wg toiKag, tj. 


LXIV. a rj epoi £7noT€\\fif] The verb tTnartXXtiv is pro- j 
perly used concerning the last will of the dying. See Valcken. on 
Hippolyt, p. 255. The common reading, tniTtXXy, does not appear 








PHiEDO. 


205 


to be in accordance with the usage of prose writers. Homer uses it 
in a similar sense, Iliad. XXIII. 95. and 107. 

b ev %dptri noiolpev] Xenoph. (Econ. VIII. 10. onp av 
Sky—tv x^ptri SiSovai. Theocrit. V. 69. rv S'd>’yaOt, pyr’ 
£/i£, Mopcrwv, tv x^P lTt Kpivyg, pyr' wv tv ya tovtov bvdayg. 

c ovSkv tcaivoTspov'] This comparative is not used simply for 
the positive. See Euthyphro, in. ri vewTtpov ytyovev; Nitzsch. 
in Append, to Plat. Ion. p. 56 foil. 

a vpwv avTwv snip.] So as to improve in virtue and wisdom. 
e ipoi /cal rolg tpolg] To me and mine. 

f ovS ’ tav 7ro\\a opoX. — noiyaere] That is, even if you pro¬ 
mise much , you will avail nothing. For ovSkv nXiov noiyaere is 
the same as ovSkv oi^eXog vp.lv tarai. See Viger, p. 138. 

B ovrog 6 So >Kp. 6 vvvi tha\.J The words are to be construed 
thus : a>g ovrog 6 ’S.wKpdryg 6 vvvi SiaX. Kal 8. tic■ r. X. tyu) tipi • 
“I cannot persuade Crito,” he says, “that the Socrates who is 
now conversing with him and you, and who arranges and de¬ 
termines what is said, i. e. who is endued with spirit and in¬ 
tellect, is myself.” This passage is spoken of by Cicero, Tuscul. 
I. 43. 

h ipwTq, Sy, nibg pe Panry] If the common reading, nwg Set pe 
Panreiv, was found in any MSS. by Stephanus, there can be no doubt 
that it arose from an interpretation of what is called the deliberative 
subjunctive, of which the use in the third person is rather uncommon. 
Crito had before asked Socrates : Pdnrwpev 8k (re riva rponov ; 
and Socrates now, as it were, putting himself in the place of Crito, 
repeats his expression, saying : nwg pe Parry, i. e. how he is to 
bury me. Plat, de Legg. p. 719. E. norepov ovv 6 rtrayptvog 
kni rolg vopoig pyStv roiovrov npogayopevy tv apxy rwv vopwv 
— Kai pij <ppd%y re icai tnantiXyaag ryv Zypiav tn aXXov 
rpanyrai vopov, napapvPiag 8k Kal neiPovg — pySe ev npog- 
8i8ip; Sophist, p. 225. A. Tip S'e Xoyoig npog Xoyovg tL rig, 
o) Qeairyre, aXXo tiny ; Meno, p. 92. E. dXXd av tine, napd 
rivag eXPy ’APyvaiwv. Protag. p. 348. D. ntpuwv Z,yrtl, orip 
iniSeVZyrai Kai pt9’ orov (3t(3aid)ayrai. Rep. I. p. 348. E. 
ovKtn pq,8iov £%fiv o t’i rig t'iny. Aristoph. Nubb. 438. not rig 
Qvyy, Sophocl. (Ed. Col. 170. Pvyartp, not rig (ppovriSog 
tXQy ; Compare Matthiae Gr. § 516. 3. 

> tig paKapwv Sy rivag ] Compare p. 107. D. ovrog ayeiv 
tnixtipti «£ Tiva ronov. 
k aXXwg Xey.] i. e. paryv. 

T 


206 


NOTES ON THE 


1 tyyvrjaaaQa ovv pa Trp. Kp.] ’Eyy vaaOai nva is to under¬ 
take to deliver up a person to another, to become bail for a person, to 
pledge one*s-self for another. Demosthen. p. 609. ed. Reisk. ravQ ’ 
vito rijg kavrov yvvaiKog optpro ttoiCjv, rjv utg iXavQepog lyyvrj - 
craro. Ibid. 899. paprvpag vpiv Trapaaxri^opai, otg ovk rjyyvrj- 
aupijv iyctt rov Happkvovra. Ibid. p. 1349. iyyvStvra rdg krk- 
pixiv Ovyarepag wg kavrov ovcrag. — As the Greeks use the phrases 
paxrjv paxtaOai, axOog ix^ ai P HV * an ^ others of the kind, so we 
here find iyyvaaOai iyyvrjv. And since iyyvaoQui takes an ac¬ 
cusative of the person, it is also correct to say kyyvr\v kyyvacQai 
nva , in a similar manner as ex@og «%0atp£tv nva, plaog picraTv 
nva, and other expressions of the same nature, are used. 

m ovrog pkv yap 0] pi]V 7rapapeva'iv'\ Understand r]yyvt]GaTO. 
— dyavaKry, be indignant, troubled, or grieved. Further on, C. 
LXVI. ’A7ro\\6S(t)pog 8k icai kv rip apirpooGav xpovtp ovSkv 
iTravf.ro daicpvujv, Kai St] Kai rore kXuwv teal dyavaicrwv ovSkva 
ovriva ov KaraKXaae. 

n utg r] TTporiOtrai — Karopvrru ] The verbs tK^epeiv, Ka- 
ropvrreiv and tt poriQsaQai are here used in their proper sense as 
applied to funerals. See Kirchmann. de Funerib. Roman, lib. II. 
c. 1. and I. 12. The middle verb is accounted for by referring it to 
Crito himself as conducting the arrangements of the funeral, which 
he had undertaken to do. SeeEurip. Alcest. 378, where Admetus, 
being about to die, reproaches in these words his father, who refuses 
to die in his stead : roiyap Qvreviov rralSag ovickr civ <pQavoig, oil 
yi]po(3o(TKr](rov<n Kai Gavovra as 7rapi(rraXov(Ti Kai 7rpo0rj(rovrai 
vsKpov. The Athenian law, in Demosthen. in Macart. p. 1071. R. 
rov diroGavovra irponGfaQai avSov, oirutg av (5ovXrjrai. Lu¬ 
cian. de Luctu, § 27. para ravra Sk Xovaavrag avrov Kai pvpip 
r<p KaXXi(TT(p xp l vet-vrag ro trwpa Kai Grafyavutoavrag rolg utpaioig 
avOaGi 7rpori0avrai. 

0 ov povov aig avro rouro] Not only in that respect, that is, 
in respect rov pt) KaXwg Xkyaiv. — With TrXrjppaXkg understand 
iffnv. 

LXV. a dvioraro aig oiKtjpd rt] That is, he rose and went into 
a certain chamber. Aristoph. Plut. 683. iiri rrjv xvrpav rrjv ri)g 
adaprjg aviorapai. Eurip. Heraclid. 59. avioraodai as xpV tig 
"Apyog. These words are to be explained in the same manner as we 
explained aTuxotpia^aiv ’A 0rjva%e, C. I. On the word oiKijpa, 
which is used for separate parts of a building according to circum¬ 
stances, see Valckenaer on Ammon. III. 4. and Dorvill. on Charit. 


PHiEDO. 


207 


p. 587. — Further on, the fuller construction would have been: 
rrepiep.evop.ev ovv wore phv tt pog qpag avrovg b. — Tore be — . 
But rore p'ev is often omitted before tots be, in the same manner as 
6 pev is sometimes omitted before 6 be. See Hermann Viger. 

р. 768. 

b bvo yap avrtp wUTg] Compare note on Apol. Socr. C. XXIII. 

c Kal ai oixeXai yvvaXKeg a0.] Nothing can be more fabulous 
than the assertion that Socrates had two wives at one time. This 
passage has, however, been so far abused as to be urged in proof of 
that position, among others by Tiber. Hemster: who, in his note on 
Lucian. Halcyon. T. I. p. 184., and in the Preface, p. xxxiii., 
affirms that it is clear from these words of Plato, that both the wives 
of Socrates, Xanthippe and Myrto, survived their husband. To 
prove this, he argues that yvvaXKeg ought to be translated wives. 
This is fully refuted by Io. Luzac in Lect. Att. p. 38 foil., where he 
has investigated the subject thoroughly, and proved the futility of 
such a supposition. Luzac translates oiKeXai yvvaXKeg women of 
the house and family, female relations or domestics; for if Plato 
intended to speak of wives, he would have merely said ai yvvaXKeg, 
not at oiiceicu yvvaXKeg. Almost the same arguments have been 
employed against the opinion of Hemsterh. by Heindorf, on this 
passage. 

d ov Karayvwffopai ye aov\ I shall not perceive in your case. 
Euthyphr. p. 2. B. ov yap eKeXvo ye Karayvuxropai, wg av ye 
erepov. Tim. p. 19. D. Alcibiad. 2. p. 143. C. Demosth., Mid, 

с. 2. ov yap av k arayvoirjv vpwv ovdevog. 

e rwv apxovTO)v~\ Understand twv evdeica. 

f & rj\9ov ayys'Wwv] What I have come announcing. This 
reading is preferable to ayyeXaiv. See Bernhardy Synt. p. 370. 
Hermann and Elmsley on Eurip. Med. 1024. Bornemann on 
Xenoph. Anab. VII. 7, 17. 

6 Kal Ttapd rcavra pot rov XP° V0V ] The preposition 7rapa is 
often thus used to signify duration of time. Xenoph.'Mem. II. 1, 2. 
7 rapa r-qv Ueivov apxh v > under his government, while he governed. 
The sense is : throughout the whole thirty days which I have passed 
in prison, he visited me, and sometimes talked with me. 

h rpi^aru) 6 av0pw7rof] "AvQp(07rog is generally thus used in 
speaking of a common and mean person : as here of the attendant 
and minister of the Eleven, and further on of the executioner. — The 
seed of the hemlock was bruised, in order to extract the juice. See 
Plin. H. N. XXV. 13. 


208 


NOTES ON THE 


• Kal |vyy.] Stephanus has correctly rendered this: et quidern 

nonnullos suis amoribus potitos. 

k ovb'ev y dp olpai Ktpbaiveiv ] On this use of the Present In¬ 
finitive, see note on Crito, C. XIV.; and on the circumstance itself, 
see Antonin. IV. 47., and the note of Gataker. A little further on, 
the words Trap* epavrtfi are not superfluous, but are added to define 
more accurately the meaning of o<p\elv y'eXwra, which signifies 
to incur ridicule either with others, or with one's-self. Therefore it 
was almost necessary to add Trap' epavrtp, i. e. in my own mind. 
The meaning then is : I think that by drinking the hemlock a little 
later I gain nothing else than this, that I shall appear ridiculous in 
my own eyes. In the words (peibopevog ovdevog eri evovrog, al¬ 
lusion is made to the verse of Hesiod, Works and Hays, 367. 
peatroQi (peibeaOai, beiXrj S’ evi irvOpivi <peibd). Seneca Epist. 1. 
Nam ut visum est majoribus nostris: Sera parsimonia in fundo 
est. 

LXVI. a f lev, etprj, w /3.] Heindorf’s assertion that elev has al¬ 
ways the meaning of trying or proving, cannot be satisfactorily proved. 
This meaning does not come from the word itself, but rather from 
the next sentence or turn of the discourse, as in this passage.—The 
words av ytip rovrcov tTTHTTrjpiov, are put first, because the Greeks 
usually put that part of the sentence first, which contains the reason 
of what is about to be said. The particle yap is prefixed in such 
cases. Aischyl. Agam. 1077. lyto S’, erroiKTelpu) yap, ov Qvpw- 
copai. Sympos. p. 175. C. rov ovv ’AydQwva, rvyxaveiv yap 
t(Tx aTOV KaraKeipevov povov, Sevp’ eQt) (pavai, EwKpareg, irap' 
ipe tcardiceHTo. Ibid. p. 204. C. /cat eyut elirov, elev drj, w Zevrj, 
KaXdg yap My eig' roiovrog wv o "Epwg riva %peiav e\ei rolg 
dv9pd)7Toig ; 

b ewg av aov (3apog.’] Sou is not to be changed here into trot. 
See note on Crito, C. XV. Rep. VII. p. 518. C. Symp. 
p. 215. E. 

c /cat ovrwg avrb rrotriaei] ** And thus, while you are walking, 
it will operate of itself, so as to require nothing else.” Iloielv, like 
the Latin/acere, is used respecting the operation of medicines. See 
Dioscorides, C. I. 95. Ttoiel tt pog tyappaKa, is efficacious against 
poisons . 

d Kal pdXa iMwg] Very cheerfully. This use of Kal paXa is 
frequent, /cat having an intensive force. A little further on, Kai 
paXa evxip&Q Kai tvKoXojg l£eme. 

e ravprjSov u7ro/3M^ag] That is, looking at him with firm coun~ 


PHiEDO. 


209 


tenante, fixing his eyes steadily on him. See Wyttenb. Epist. Crit. 
p. 46. The sense of the subsequent words is: Is it lawful to pour 
forth to any God a libation from this potion ? 
f pkrpiov elvat 7 r.] That is, to be sufficient. 

B ETri&xopevog] Having put the cup to his lips, which is the 
force of the middle voice. For ettex^-v rtvl ttuiv is to offer , or 
present a potion to any one, as Arist. Nubb. 1385. Apoll. Rhod. I. 
472. y Kai ETncxopevog 7 rXeov benag aptyoTEpyci reive. Stesi- 
clior. in Athen. XI. p. 499. B. gkvQiov be Xa(3i)v rrlev emcxo" 
pevog. 

h Karkxsiv to pi) £axp.] Scarcely could we refrain from weep¬ 
ing. Soph. Philoctet. 349. ovrroXvv xpbvov P irr'eox ov PW P Le 
vavcroXeXv raxv . See Hermann on Viger. p. 810 foil. 

* eyKaXvxpapevog] Covering my face with my cloak. See Dor- 
vill on Charit. p. 274. 

k o'lov avbpog~\ That is, on toiovtov. 

1 ovbeva ovTiva. ov fcarefcXacf] This reading KaTEKXaae, which 
is found in the best MSS., was restored by a conjecture ofStephanus, 
instead of the common reading, KarUXavce. It is supported by the 
usage of the language, for Wyttenb. was wrong in asserting that 
KaraKXav could not be taken thus simply. It is used in exactly a 
similar manner by Plutarch, Life of Pericl. c. 37. >7 Trcrpovo-a bvg- 
rvxia T(ff IlfpiicXet rrepi rov oIkov, wg biKtjv rivet bebwKon Trjg 
virepo-^lag ical Trjg peyaXavx’iag eZeivyg, sTreicXaGE rovg *A Orjvai- 
ovg. Life of Demosthen. c. 17. opuivTsg ettik Xiiivra iroXXovg icat 
cnroQrjXvvovTa tov A icxlvyv r<y Xoy<p tovtu) irpog oiktov. And 
KaraKXav. Achill. Tat. III. 10. Xyarrjv pev Kai "E XXyva Kai 
Qcjvi) KaTEKXacE Kai berjaig kpdXa^ev, where see Jacobs, and in 
Addit. ad Athen. p. 277. 

ra ola TToteirt] This is an expression of wonder and displeasure. 
Euthyphr. p. 15. E. ola rroieXg, w eraXpe, aTr’ EXiribog pe Karajda- 
Xwv. Charmid. p. 166. C. Alcibiad. I. p. 113. E. 

n ovrog o bovg to 0 .] These words are thought by some critics 
to be a gloss, but without sufficient reason. For in familiar dis¬ 
course, such a repetition, when consistent with perspicuity, is not 
inadmissible. Besides, if these words were omitted, the collocation 
would be : Kai dpa ovTog e^aiTTopevog avrov. 

0 <5iaXi7rwj/] Leaving some interval, he now and then looked at. 
Further on, oXiyov X9° V0V biaXiirwv EKivyOrj. The word bta- 
Xnrwv is also used simply, see Bast. Epist. Crit. p. 178. 

T 3 


210 NOTES ON THE 

p hravi&v ovtu)q~\ Advancing his hand higher and higher towards 
the vital parts. 

avTog ryKTSTo] Socrates himself also touched his limbs as they 
were becoming cold, and said that he should die when fyc. For so 
these words are to be understood with Fischer. Others refer them to 
the attendant, but incorrectly ; at least Forster's conjecture, av9ig , 
must be adopted in that case. On the euphemism tots oixv ffiTai > 
see Bergler on Alciphr. I. 232. 

p mpi rb r/rpov ] Moeris: fjrpov. rov vtt o tov optyaXov 
tottov ”ArriK&g' vrroydoTpiov 'E XXyviK&g. Timaeus: yrpov' b 
fieraZv optpaXov re icai aldoiov Tonrog. 

8 eveKeKaXvTrro yap] After the manner of dying persons. See 
Xenoph. Cyrop. VIII. 7, 28. Livius IV. 12., VIII. 9.: where the 
death of Decius is narrated. Sueton. Caesar, c. 82. 

1 rtf ’A<tkX. o<p.~\ This is beautifully said. For the sick were 
wont, on the recoveiy of their health, to sacrifice a cock to iEscula- 
pius. Socrates thus indicates that being now at length released 
from the chains of the body, he shall attain true health. 

u ci n aXXo Xcycig] If you have any other commission to give 
me. 

7 ra op par a iffrtjcrev] Had fixed his eyes, his eyes had become 
fixed. See Dorvill on Charit. p. 404. 

w £vvcXaj3cr. or.] Closed his mouth. See Kirchmann. de 
Funeribus, 1. 6. p. 45.: and Casaubon on Suet. Octav. 99. 

LXVII. a t&v tote wv etc ctpdO.] This passage is considered 
corrupt by Wyttenbach and Heindorf. The former suggested the 
reading t&v tcwtcote. The latter thought that the whole passage 
ought to be remodelled thus : avdpog, t'lpelg Qalpev av, Ttav- 
TOJV, TOTE dig E7TEipd0r]pEV, dpl<TTOV KCll aXXdjg <ppOVip(t)T&TOV 
Rai diKcuoT&TOV. The MSS. give no assistance. One of them, 
however, omits t&v tote, in which words there must be some 
corruption. Perhaps we ought to write: avbpog, &g tyctipEV av, 
tote 0’ &v E7TEipaOppEV dpioTov, Kai d\Xfc>£ (pp. a man both 
then, when he was dying, the best of all, and through his whole 
life the wisest and most just. Thus the praise of courage and 
endurance, which were most conspicuous towards the end of his 
life is given to Socrates: for apurrog is well known to be pe¬ 
culiarly applicable to a man of courage and fortitude. Wisdom and 
justice are also attributed to him as virtues which he cultivated 
through his whole life-time. In which words an animated picture 


PHiEDO. 


211 


is placed before the eyes of the reader, of all the virtues for which 
this illustrious sage was distinguished. Therefore /cat aWwg is 
referred to the foregoing tots 9', as in C. LXV. ok d’ eyw icat 
aWojg syvojKa sv tovtXP° V V ytvvcuoTaTOv—Kai St) iccit vvv 
si) old’ on ovk ifioi xa\£7rav£t g. Others have referred tu>v tots 
to the contemporaries of Socrates; and applied aWwq to all pos¬ 
terity. 
















VJ 


4°+ 





4 o. 


• x° ^ 

>. c* 4 <y ,»•«,. ^ v • *•-•*- 

\/ •*: %,** * N 


♦ ^ *<? 


*«, .♦*' .•££% % 

«*-. «+ o'/tv^lmV* ^ 


"o v 


i. 0 ^. 







y.» ^ • %^|IWSSn Sv '*'. w *9 

•v / 4 

« .% / > 

•V% _ 

V * v*^X' ■ * * 

: 5,0 ^ 

y % *'*~^ v ‘ a.°° V • • • * • 

•V^V. >♦ ♦♦ ** ♦ 

^ V vV 

• A ^r 

5 *••■»• . <\ *'T7i*' *<y q, -• • • 

**b_ ^ .M,-.. <t_ .0^ .•“-*. ^O >4 


, ^ ** 





* ^ ^ • 



.c,*' jv 

1> l^. 4 



O 



i* fj. * 

• y 

^ .VtSS&*\ *<* 


o~H/ 

<5 “'o..«* <\ <V 4 

**b V* 6 • * • * <s>* 

XP .A * -r^tv * *P 



** Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
^ Treatment Date: July 2004 


^ _ 0 ^***' 00 PreservationTechnologies 

. « < L^w / * *0 A A WORLO LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 




111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 


jL * 






vO V*, 

.0 V ••*’* 

U9 *!••* ^ V • 

* •I 




.* >° ^ 
o ■* 





aV** 

• 4 AV I 

* ^ 

<. *'TT» 4 ,6 V T o, 'o'.'. * A <\ 

• -fv _ • ‘ 1 * ♦ *6 4<» c ° “ ° ♦ 


* • 




% •■«• *0 
♦ ^ <0 ♦ •••- V 

• <?P A p?y ^ W/UC ^ 

: ^ v 



^*o 


%, *"'* y 


• • 







A®, A .^V % C°*.£^ °o < 

•'^K*. ^o 4 :^(p»’: "fav* 

^ o a */“» •■ A ^ *«»€Siss£!V o $9 


• tt o 


® *r<CZM&-' Jr ** 

f\ < ‘*V A C» # 

• a® v *••’• y °^. * 

y .• ■*. *^> v- •■%!’•. c\ 

y .vvVa\ **.y /jSfc* , *■ 

. • “ wiPl?*' ^ V-i V 

%- 0 .* <y •‘. \rv~- . ■ . 

V *3> A <. ** 

*b A % c^“o ^ 

° / , # ^Sk% V 

* jK\\I///>z? * 



^ f * (4 

% ++ y ••‘y,*. 



♦ %> j 

: *■* o 4 • 

<5 < 

• 1 y c %. * •'•"* ’ 

A c* ,<y 0 

A A* ► 

^ :fm&'. y y * 




« * o„ 






<> \> .*••' 

> *> A^ * 

: ^ : 


*b -?.?• a -c- y 

• /.•». %., <?/ii&- 



1 

>0 


fo>^ 



0 ^° ^ 
r ‘y % 

y ^ a 

^ :MA« 







A 



V v .-i 











































